Fichas
Sin título
Fichas del conjunto (8)
- 1Language and ThoughtWhorfian hypothesis: language determines thought (linguistic determinism)
Nativists: Fodor & Chomsky - language is innate
Empiricists: Sperber - environment influences who we are and who we become (contrast with nativism)
Constructivists: Piaget - lang emerges as an innate property of cognition alongside many other capabilities
Radical pragmatists: language in context
Fodor: language of thought - separate from natural lang - has it's own syntax
Behaviourists: introspection e.g. Wundt
no thought just subvocal speech - Watson - paralysis showed still thought so thought is important
Key questions: inherited vs acquired?
lang prerequisite for thought/ vice versa?
linguistic expression meanings determinate or relative to context? - 2Language of thoughtFodor: separate from natural lang - symbolic units of meaning - encode sensory input and use lang of thought to understand it
Aitchinson 4 uniquely human aspects: structural dependence, semanticity, creativity, displacement
Lang/syntax evolved to aid communication e.g. precision - not an evo spandrel as per Chomsky
Broad and narrow faculties: broad encapsulates a few e.g. sensory-motor, conceptual-intentional and recursion - not all human specific but narrow only consists of recursion - human specific
Recursion: 'what if', complex clauses, aids problem solving e.g. Tower of Hanoi
Neanderthals and Homosapiens: not brain size diff but WM capacity - Neanderthals no cultural appropriation - living separately - limited WM - difficulty generating new utterances and adapting to new situations - lack of creativity e.g. no evidence of dreams
fMRI taxi drivers hippocampal differences - environment influences cognition - empiricist support - 3Nativism and thought part 1Piaget (constructivist): lang depends on thought - an emergent property of cog along with other capabilities e.g. playing and actions
thinking precedes emergence of lang, lang & assoc properties emerg as result of cog dev, lang doesn't affect mid childhood reasoning, communicative function of speech emerges bc cog
CRITICISMS: blind/deaf - impoverished sensory input doesn't impair language (unless parents compensate) - hard to establish cause and effect rship
Fodor: language of thought concepts and structure of prepositions
concept acquisition: innate - hypotheses internally represented and evaluated - environment confirms or refutes - symbolic data/computer code = lang of thought - concepts aren't definitions
thus learning lang involves assoc words w/concepts - not in all contexts e.g. new concepts iPhone
Mental stance: belief/thought/ - prop @itud
Mstate: cause&effect, structural, syntax
shared properties of lang & thought: creative, structured, phenom productive, thought: not just a thought but accomp mental state --> affirming the consequent separates thought from belief - 4Nativism and thought part 2FB tasks: Maxi test, younger children do not understand the false beliefs of others - theory of mind - beliefs vs knowledge - lack of understanding experience of another
not inability to suppress own beliefs
FB: linguistic competence? deaf children delay re FB/T of M - evidence that lang plays role in dev of false belief - important or prerequisite? awareness but not same as FB
FB and chimps: better FB in compthan competition - evolutionary differences - task dependent - gesture ability but diff understanding and usage - due to collab ability development - 5Natvisim and radical pragmatics part 1Chomsky: linguistic universals - innateness - Rad prag - lang in context
Ling universals - children have to acquire and use complex lang w/o training - innate? SVO ordering across languages - universal pref for simpler ordering -
lang dev occur in environment and environment predisposes what we pay attention to - innate ling universals?
Chomsky: structures and parameters: lang dev via innate acquisition device - children abstract rules about lang use - fine tuning innate capabilities
if lang drives cog dev - diffs btwn deaf and normal children - however mixed evidence e.g. diffs between lang and sign lang could be due to diff rule subsets re syntax (plus bilinguals) - 6Nativism and radical pragmatics part 2minimalist programme: bottom up and bio - optimal design for lang use - syntax autonomous and accidental? v well suited if it is... interaction between lang code and lang of thought code + interaction from other systems
lang as perf system: syntactic autonomy interacting w other systems all thoughts can find appropriate verbal expression: INNATE
Radical pragmatics: lang in context not just a system - meanings not fixed, context can affect (homonyms and polysemous)
are conceptual semantics thus pointless? irony - literal vs intended meaning - too simplistic to assume utterance is always received as intended
Authorship: no single unambiguous meaning to text
real author, implied author, narrator, narratee, implied reader, real reader
more than just transfer of info - author's perception of recipient influences their writing - social dimension of lang - 7Linguistic Determinism part 1Requirements: cross lang diffs re thoughts, higher cog processes, diffs caused by lang not just reflected by lang or due to cultural influences
colour perception: Dani people vs English people - colour chips naming and memory - no diff for memory but diff for naming - no influence of lang on cog - diff results found e.g. verbal element - ling reps mediate performance - more available for lang so better performance - difficult to prove - no evidence that lang influences non ling tasks/thinking
spatial cognition: diff langs have diff terms for spatial properties - diffs encoding spatial rships influences diff non-ling tasks - diff prefs for diff frames of refs in diff langs - absolute or relative --> refuted bc changes in environment found to be bigger influence on frame of ref than diffs of lang - 8Linguistic Determinism part 2metaphors about time: Mandarin and English - vertical and horizontal, even in Eng task still vertical - evidence for ling determinism but not replicated - vertical can be taught
Linguistic relativism and relational reasoning: do we think before we speak? relational labels enhanced reasoning in cup and stickers task (array and sizes) - but does this transfer to other tasks?
language influences thought when we are thinking with the intent to use language e.g. write/speak - for specific purpose
diff langs describe things in more/less rich ways - does this mean there is a difference in how they think about them or just how they speak about them?
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre Sin título, creado por hperl89 el 23/09/2015.
- Creado por
- hperl89
- Visitas
- 2
- Valoración