Problem 9 - language etc Flashcards
(61 cards)
1
Q
deontological prescriptions
A
-forbid certain behavior regardless of consequences
2
Q
utilitarian prescriptions
A
-brining greatest food for greatest number of people
3
Q
pragmatics - key word
A
- 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
4
Q
figurative language
A
-forms of language not intended to be taken literally
5
Q
standard pragmatic model
A
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
6
Q
graded salience hypothesis
A
- 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
7
Q
predication model of metaphor understanding
A
- two components
1) latent semantic analysis component
2) construction integration component
8
Q
1) latent semantic analysis component
A
- 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
9
Q
2) construction integration component
A
- 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
10
Q
Evidence for the predication model of metaphor understanding
A
- 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)
11
Q
common ground
A
- 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
12
Q
speakers have 2 methods to deal with common ground
A
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
13
Q
Perspective adjustment model - Keysar
A
-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
14
Q
talking and thinking - western cultures
A
- 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
15
Q
talking and thinking - eastern cultures
A
- they do not see language and thought as related
- do not think that what one says is who one is
16
Q
what if there are really differences in east and west between the relation of talking and thinking?
A
- 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
17
Q
solving Raven’s matrices
- study
- methods
A
- 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)
18
Q
Study: Raven’s matrices
-findings
A
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
19
Q
explanation for Raven’s matrices findings
A
- 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
20
Q
pen study
A
- 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)
21
Q
Explicit VS implicit communication in high context cultures
A
- 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’
22
Q
Explicit vs implicit communication in low context cultures
A
- west
- less shared information (rules) to guide behavior
- must communicate more explicitly to fill in gaps that could lead to misunderstandings
23
Q
Sapir-Whorf
Whorfian/linguistic relativity hypothesis
A
- 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)
24
Q
Linguistic relativity and color perception
A
- proven that cultures that split up the color spectrum differently ( in different words) perceive them different as well
- > categorize them differently
- article: russian blues
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
compound Bilingualism
- person learns two languages in the same context where they are used concurrently
- fused presentation of the languages in the brain
30
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
-
31
functional neuroplasticity
-the study of how experience modifies brain structures and brain function
32
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
33
Monolinguals are better at..
- verbal skills
- large vocabulary
- picture-naming tasks
- semantic fluency= comprehending and producing words
34
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
35
inhibitory control model
-?
36
bilingual interactive model
?
37
Bilingualism and dementia
- lifelong bilingualism protects against age-related cognitive decline
- may even postpone the onset of symptoms
38
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
39
Conclusion: bilinguals better at...
-inhibiton
-selection
-switching
-sustained attention
-working memory
-representation and retrieval
=> mental flexibility
40
linguistic determinism
- language determines thought
| - problematic behavioral measures
41
linguistic relativism
- language-thought interaction
| - no neurophysiological evidence
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
anaphor resolution
-working out the referent of a pronoun or noun by relating it to some previously mentioned noun or noun phrase
46
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
47
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
48
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
49
discourse comprehension
- schema theory
- Bartlett theory
- construction integration model
50
limitations predicate model
-only for A is B metaphor
51
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
52
egocentric heuristic, evidence, evaluation, limitation
...
53
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
54
schema theory
- bartlett
| - top down
55
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)
56
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
57
findings and limitations - construction integration model
- > top down processing should be included
| - emotions are not included
58
event index model
-wer wie wo was warum
.......
-5 dimensions
59
event segmentation
- 1 dimension
| - > if one thing changes, completely new picture is formed
60
west
- greek background , debating etc
- believe and thought related
- analytic focus on one thing -> easy to express
61
east
- holistic thinking
| - > cant be expressed in words easily
