18. origins 2013 lang and thought

8/13/2019 18. Origins 2013 Lang and Thought

1/39

Developing Knowledge of

Number

Developing natural number concepts: conclusion


2/39

Last class: The foundations of natural number

language

(number words, verbal counting,

quantified expressions)

core representationsof large, approximate

numbers

core representationsof small exact

numbers

Testing two predictions of this hypothesis:

1. natural number tasks depend on core

representations of large approximate numbers.

2. natural number tasks depend on language


3/39

1. Amazonian adults without a system of

exact number words and countingrepresent approximate but not exact

numbers. Language or culture?

Testing effects of language (review)

2. fMRI studies show activation of

language areas during exact (but not

approx) calculation on Arabic numbers

7 + 4 = 12 or 11?7 + 4 10 or 15?

3. Some people with damage to language areas show impaired

exact (but not approx) arithmetic. But is language involved inadults' calculation, or are exact calculation processes just

happening near language processes?

Two more findings in normal adults:


4/39

(Dehaene, 1997; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990; Lemer etal., 2004; Dehaene et al., 1999)

1. Studies of the speed of mental calculation.

More studies of mental calculation, exact or approximate, presented

only in Arabic notation:

ex: 12 + 16 = 27 or 28?

ex: 12 + 16 20 or 30?

English speakers are faster to perform exact arithmetic problems with

numbers whose words have fewer syllables (e.g. 12 + 16 < 11 + 17);no effect for the approximate problems.

Chinese speakers (whose number words have fewer syllables) perform

arithmetic faster than English speakers.Welsh speakers (whose number words have more syllables than

English) perform arithmetic slower than English speakers.

These effects are found only for exact, not approximate, calculation.


5/39

2. Arithmetic calculation in bilingual adults

Many anecdotal reports (and some experiments) show that speakers of

multiple languages perform arithmetic in the language in which theylearned it. In some extreme cases, they do this even if they otherwise

no longer speak the language.

Ex: Dehaene on calculations in Italian by an adult who otherwise

never speaks Italian.

Importantly, this effect has only been reported in cases where adults

must represent numbers exactly: making exact change vs. giving

approx. bills.

Do all these findings say that a specific natural language is necessary

for representing exact numbers?

Or is language just habitually used for this purpose?


6/39

(Tsivkin & Spelke, 2001)

One attempt to distinguish these possibilities:

Arithmetic calculation in bilingual adults

Participants: native speakers of Russian, calculate in Russian, now

studying in an English environment (U.S.)Taught new arithmetic facts in each of their languages.

Facts used either familiar operations or novel operations:

49 + 63 = 112 or 102?

in base 7, 13 + 25 = 31 or 41?

Half the problems required exact answers, half approximate answers:

49 + 63 110 or 80?

is the cube root of 25,000 30 or 50?

Each problem was trained in just one language (half in English and

half in Russian). Then participants were tested in both languages.Predictions: if the effects of language depend on ingrained habits,

then an advantage for the language of learning number (Russian). If

the effects reflect the use of language to represent new facts involving

exact numbers, then an advantage for the trained language.


7/39(Tsivkin & Spelke, 2001)

Teaching adults new arithmetic facts

Learning new exact (but not approximate) arithmetic facts is

specific to the language of training.

Further studies: same effect for learning exact-number facts of

other kinds (e.g., dates in a history lesson).

Exact Addition(49 + 63 = 112)

Russian English

training training

Approximate Addition(49 + 63 110)

Russian English

training training

Trained language Untrained language


8/39

Summary and Question

There's something about exact number that makes numerate

adults activate a specific natural language, even when we haveanother symbol system (Arabic notation) that could represent

number independently of language.

Does this mean language is necessaryfor thinking about exactnumber?

The people in these studies have used language to communicate

about exact number all their lives. It's possible that language isn't

strictly necessary, but just very useful for this purpose. (If youforced us to think about exact numbers only with Arabic symbols,

or with no symbols, it's conceivable that we would succeed.)


9/39

Language and Thought

readings for next class: chapter 10, Halberda


10/39

Language learning depends on preexisting concepts

Today's topic: Do any of our concepts depend on language?(specific version just considered: do large, exact number

concepts like 17 depend on language, or are these concepts

just habitually associated with a specific language?)

Look, a bunny!RABBIT

RABBIT


11/39

Outline

First question: Do any of our concepts depend on the acquisition of

variable properties of language: properties that differ from onelanguage to another?

i.e., do speakers of one language have concepts that aren't

available to speakers of a different language?

spatial prepositions

grammatical gender

Second question: Do any of our concepts depend on the acquisition

of universal properties of language: a lexicon of words and a set of

rules for combining them to form expressions?

i.e., do speakers of any language have concepts that aren'tavailable to people who have not fully learned any language?

language and number

language and space

language and object kinds


12/39

Whorf's Hypothesis

amateur linguist, student of NativeAmerican languages.

Struck by differences between English

& other languages: (e.g.) Hopi: tense.Turkish: source of knowledge.

Benjamin Lee Whorf Do these differences affect how one

(1897-1941) thinks about actions?

One possible answer: No. Differences between languages lead to

differences in what we can communicate to one another but not to

differences in what we can think. (see Pinker, The Language Instinct)


13/39

Whorfs Hypothesis

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The

categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do

not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the

contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions

which has to be organized by our minds--and this means largely by the

linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into

concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we areparties to an agreement to organize it in this way--an agreement that

holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of

our language.

Prediction: speakers of different languages will have different concepts:linguistic relativity.

Strongest version: no concept of X without language expressions for X

Weakest version: all concepts are possible without language, but a

concept is less accessible if language does not reinforce it.

Two cases: prepositions & gender


14/39

Prepositions: Languages vary in their obligatory

marking of relations between objects across languages

Languages differ in whether and how they obligatorily categorize

relations of support and containment.

Support/containment


15/39

English: in/on Korean: tight/loose

(Choi & Bowerman)

Some languages differ even more and express different

mechanical relationships.


16/39

Loose-in

Tight-in

Loose-on

Tight-on

Support, Containment, and Tightness of Fit(question to adults: what am I doing?)

English distinction

Korean distinction


17/39

Loose on Tight on

vs.

How similar is it to each of

these events?

Loose-in

Tight in

See this event?

0

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

910

tight loosetight loose

nsns

RatedSimilarity(10=high)

No effect of tight/loose onrated similarity of cross-

cutting onvs. inevents for

adult English speakers.

Do English-speaking adults respect the Korean distinction?

(Hespos & Spelke, 2004)


18/39

Loose in Tight in

Hespos & Spelke, 2004

vs. Loose-in

Tight in

RatedSimilarity(10=high)

0

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

tight loose tight loose

ns

ns

Little effect of tight/loose on

rated similarity of ineventsfor adult English speakers.

But, big effect of in/on for

these speakers.

How similar is it to each of

these events?See this event?

Do they make an easier Korean distinction?


19/39

Summary and Question

Adult speakers of English spontaneously categorize spatial

relations in terms of support and containment, not in terms of

tight vs. loose fit. Adult speakers of Korean were previously

found to do the reverse (Choi & Bowerman).

How do these differences develop? Do children construct the

relevant concepts over the course of learning a language, or do

they have access to the concepts independently of language

experience?

Studies of infants in U.S., tested on the Korean distinction.


20/39

Loose-in habituation Tight-in habituation

Infants' categorization of tight- vs. loose-fitting inevents

Tight-in test Loose-in test

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

Loose fit

Tight fit

LookingTime(s

ec)



21/39

Loose-on habituation Tight-on habituation

Tight vs. loose-fitting events cross-cutting in/on

more on infants

Tight-in test Loose-in test

0

Loose fit

Tight fit

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

LookingTim

e(sec)

In the absence of any experience with Korean, infants are sensitive

to the tight/loose distinction. (Hespos & Spelke, 2004)


22/39


23/39

Some languages categorize two of these events together and

treat the third as different. Can you guess the categories?

In/on: 100% success

Simple tight/loose: 75% success.

Tight/loose cross-cutting in/on: 70% success.

Adult English speakers retain considerable access to the tight-

loose distinction.

How serious is the decline?

(NB: the English lexicon includes tight & loose)


vs.

More studies of English-speaking adults:


24/39

1. Infants make the conceptual distinctions required by both

languages.

2. Adults use more readily the distinction thats obligatory in

their native language, but they retain considerable access to theother, optional distinction.

Whorfs strong claim is false in this case; the weak claim is

correct.

Tight/loose and in/on: Summary

G d


25/39

Gender

Languages vary in their assignment of gender to nouns:

Chinese: no gender (even for people & animals)

English: gender for people & animals, not for objects.Spanish: gender for all nouns.

When languages assign gender to all nouns, the assignment often

is arbitrary.

Masculine Feminine

German moon sun

toaster bridge

Spanish sun moon

bridge toaster

Gender affects forms of articles, adjectives, and some verbs:

Ex: French-- Le vieux chat est mort; la vielle vache est morte.

Do these forms influence speakers conceptions of the things they

talk about?


26/39

GenderParticipants: Stanford & MIT students

Native speakers of German or Spanish

Exp 1: learn English proper names for each of 24 objects (half

masculine in Spanish & feminine in German; half the reverse).

This is Patrick/Patricia

Conditions:

Congruent Spanish: toaster = Patricia, bridge = George

Congruent German: toaster = Patrick, bridge = Georgia

(NB: congruent Spanish = incongruent German)

(Boroditsky)


27/39

Gender

Findings: Better memory for the pairs in which the gender of thename in Englishmatched the gender of the common noun in

subjects native language.

The gender assigned by their native language colors speakers

representations of objects, even when they are speaking English.

Will native-language gender affect subjects English-language

descriptions of objects?

-- Patricia


28/39

Exp 2: write down the first three adjectives in English that come

to mind when you see pictures of each of these 24 objects.

German speakers (bridge =feminine): beautiful,

elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, slender

Spanish (bridge = masculine): big, dangerous,

long, strong, sturdy, towering

The gender assigned by their native language

affects speakers descriptions of objects, even when

they are speaking English.

Example findings:German speakers (key = masculine): hard,

heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, useful

Spanish speakers (key = feminine): golden,

intricate, little, lovely, shiny, tiny


29/39

Are these effects of grammatical gender positive or

negative (relative to a language without gender)?

More on the proper name learning study:Performance of native speakers of Spanish & German compared to

that of native speakers of English, for the same names & objects:

Congruent-Spanish Congruent-German

Spanish good badGerman bad good

English good good

Experience with a language in which toasters are masculine interferes

with the ability to conceive of toasters as feminine.

In the absence of such experience, adults can conceive of toasters

either as masculine or as feminine.

Patricia

G d S


30/39

Gender: Summary

Native speakers of a language with grammatical gender show

influences of that language on representations of themasculinity/femininity of inanimate objects.

But: The nature of this effect is negative, relative to the object

representations of speakers of a language without grammatical gender.

--in English, a bridge can be either Patrick or Patricia.--in German, a bridge can only be Patricia.

Like tight/loose and like speech perception, humans can form gendered

representations of objects without language.Acquisition of a gendered language pares down these representations.

More evidence against Whorfs strong claims and favoring the weak

claim.


31/39

Language and Thought: Interim Summary

Do speakers of different languages have different concepts?

In two cases (object mechanics, object gender), language affects

the accessibility and salience of concepts.

Beneath the patterns of variation, strong universals in human

conceptual capacities, in these cases and others (mind, space,

number).

In general, strong universals in human capacities of all sorts,

despite apparently large differences in the ways people indifferent cultures live, behave, and talk:

universal systems of core knowledge

universal language faculty


32/39

A different possible relation of language to thought

for Whorf: languages force us to categorize experiences into concepts.now: languages allow us to combine concepts productively.

All human languages are productively combinatorial: once children

learn the words and rules of a language, they can form infinitely manynew expressions.

These words and rules might allow children and adults to form new

concepts by productive combination of old ones.

linguistic dependence without linguistic relativity: people who learn

anylanguage will gain this ability.


33/39

How to test for this relation?

Not by comparing speakers of different languages, because all naturallanguages are productively combinatorial.

Earlier tests in the case of number: studying language activation during

performance of a given cognitive task (there, exact calculation). These

tests can tell us when language is habitually used in cognitive

performance. They don't clearly tell us that language is necessary.

Two alternatives:

1. We may need symbols to perform the task (e.g., as memory aids) andlanguage just may be our best, most practiced symbol system.

2. We may be able to perform the task with no symbols at all, and

language may just let us perform it faster/better.


34/39

Language and productive combinations

One method:

studies of adults lacking a full, productively combinatoriallanguage.

Three case studies:

natural number: representing large, exact numbers.

navigation: combining layout geometry with landmarks.

natural kinds: using kind concepts to individuate objects.


35/39

Testing effects of language on number: Nicaraguan

homesigners

Four profoundly & congenitally deaf adults, living in a hearing

community, with no exposure to any spoken or sign language.

They communicate by homesign: they have developed gestures

denoting objects and actions, and they use gestures to convey number.They live in a numerate culture, with money, calendars, etc.

Because they have no formal schooling, compared to hearing adults in

Nicaragua with no formal schooling.

NB: a way to separate effects of language from effects of culture.(Spaepen, Coppola, Spelke, Carey & Goldin-Meadow, 2011)


36/39

Testing effects of language : Homesign

Nicaraguan homesigners use gestures with raised fingers to talk

about number, and they understand when others use these gestures

to talk to them.

(Spaepen, Coppola, Spelke, Carey & Goldin-Meadow, 2011)

They use these gestures together with

gestures for object kinds to describe arrays

of objects.

task: "what's on this card?"

four cup


37/39

Testing effects of language : Homesign

two versions of the card task: time-limited and untimed.

different objects, numbers 1-20.


same task given to

hearing people withno schooling from

the same villages.


38/39

Number language in Nicaraguan homesigners

Homesigners gestures for number are

not ordered: they have great

difficulty ordering gestures and dont

use them successively in a count list.

Homesigners gestures for number are

not summary symbols: Four raised

fingers are 4 symbols for 1, not 1

symbol for 4.


These homesigners have very limited numerical language.

Homesigners gestures for number are approximate, not exact.


39/39

Number concepts in Nicaraguan homesigners

When homesigners are asked to

enumerate objects or events in non-

verbal tasks, they do so approximately

and without the use of gestures.

Homesigners use money and

recognize specific bills, but theirrepresentation of monetary values

also is approximate.

Cultural pressure is not sufficient for the development of full

natural number concepts, which depend on one or more aspects of

language that fail to emerge spontaneously in homesign.

(S C l S lk C & G ldi M d 2011)

18. origins 2013 lang and thought

Documents