Language and Thought

Language is a reflection of thought Language is used to communicate thought. Thought is primary

We are capable of the same thoughts regardless of language Language is a mirror of the mind in a deep and significant sense We can study language to better understand thought itself.

Senses drives -> Conceptual categories are communicated by -> Linguistic categories Thus, the concepts that we choose to label with words of English have no bearing on the kinds of concepts (ideas) that we can entertain about the world or build to represent the world

The labels we choose actually shape the concepts we have Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about

Senses <- Conceptual Categories <- Linguistic categories The labels we choose actually shape the concepts we have Thus, concepts that are labelled by the same thing could merge together, where you no longer think of them as two different concepts Unlabelled concepts can fade from importance or disappear completely Labels might also make subtly different concepts more distinct

We look at experiments expressing the difference in how languages label colors and space

Procedures: Participants place individual colored chips into specific color categories. Findings: English speakers tend to divide colors by green, blue, purple, pink, red, orange, yellow, and brown. Members of the Berinmo tribe in New Guinea divide the colors into fewer categories than English speakers

Background Russian speakers use two different linguistic terms for blue (light and dark blue), and does that cause them to see it as two different concepts Aim: Do the categorical color terms that we regularly use in out language warp color perception? Procedures: In the trials, participants see on screen 3 squares of blue and need to pick the color square that is the odd one out. All trials within the same category for English speakers Russian speakers are categorized blue into two categories. This led to a cross-category test and a within-category test as part of the task. Predictions: Russian speakers are good at the cross-category test and bad at the within-category test Findings: Russian speakers are slow in the within-category test and fast in the cross-category test.

Language effects go away when subjects are distracted by an additional language task (verbal interference). In fact that Russian speakers are no longer faster in the cross-category test than in the within-category test. If verbal interference makes the effect go away, then it is likely that language is affecting the decision process, not the perception of color itself.

Language is left-hemisphere dominant The right visual field is processed by the left hemisphere

Procedures: All English speakers as subjects. Stimuli used in the experiment are two shades of green and two shades of blue The test is to find the odd one out in a wheel with all the same color except one Four different kinds of trials: target is between-category in the left visual field, target is between-category in the right visual field, target is within category in the left visual field, and target is within category in the right visual field. Predictions: If language influences perception, than the fastest time would be when the target is between categories in the right visual field. Findings: The fastest reaction time occurs when the target is between categories in the right visual field. Rebuttal: Effect goes away with verbal interference condition

Procedures: All English speakers as subjects Stimuli used in the experiment as nonsense objects. The trials are to find the odd one out. Three conditions. 1. Label condition: Before the test, first taught names for categories 2. No-label condition Before the test, trained to sort into two groups (no words used) 3. Baseline No training on labels Predictions For the no-label condition, if it were about language then they would show no effects But if it is about forming categories, then see effects in the right visual field. Findings: In the label condition, see the effects of the category in the right visual field. The between-category in the right visual field has the fastest reaction time In the baseline, there are no effects. In the no-label condition, faster reaction time with categories in the right visual field. See the effects of the category in the right visual field. Conclusions: It is about forming categories, not language The presence of distinct mental categories (not language itself) warps perception

Represents the location of objects in space relative to the body axes of the self Ex, Left and right

Encodes information about the location of one object or its parts with respect to other objects. Ex. North and South

Allocentric-only language They lived on the side of a hill/mountain so used the mountain/hill as a reference point So they used, uphill = south, downhill=north, traverse = earth/west

A speaker of allocentric language cannot remember arrays of objects in egocentric spatial terms Speakers of Tzeltal cannot represent space egocentrically

Procedures: Sit subjects in front of a table and have them memorize items on table 1. Then have them rotate to Table 2 behind them and tell them to recreate the same as Table 1. So the allocentric tendency would have the frog on the north side. The egocentric tendency would place the frog on the right side. Prediction: Tzeltal would only do the task allocentrically Findings: Dutch speakers prefer to solve the problem egocentrically Tzeltal speakers prefer to solve the problem allocentrically

The spatial environment of the test was different for the two groups being studied. The Dutch speakers were tested indoors in a small test room with few landmarks they could use. Tzeltal was tested outdoors in the village with many landmarks.

Procedures: One condition has the blinds down in a room with few landmarks, while doing the test Another condition has the blinds up in a room with many landmarks while doing the test Third condition was outside with many landmarks while doing the test Findings: In the first condition, with blinds down, students solved the problem egocentrically In the second condition, with blinds up, it was split on whether they solved it egocentrically or allocentrically In the third condition, being outdoors was split on whether they solved it egocentrically or allocentrically Later experiments demonstrated that in fact, Tzeltal speakers can think about space either allocentrically or egocentrically, depending on context

Many reasons why communities might differ in their choice of spatial terms Rural vs urban, Preliterate vs literate, outdoorsy vs indoorsy