Class Notes (835,573)
Canada (509,252)
Psychology (4,206)
PSY274H5 (129)
Lecture 7

PSY274 Lecture 7 (Oct 22).docx

9 Pages
72 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY274H5
Professor
Craig Chambers
Semester
Fall

Description
PSY274 Lecture 7 - Test preparation o Study! o Answer what you think you’re answering  Clear, coherent o Information on lecture notes doesn’t mean it’s the answer; they’re just supplements to the answers, so you may need to explain more in order to show that you understand - LAST LECTURE (continued) o Some people say umms and ahhs as a side signal that it’s intentional, but this theory has been cast out - How do listeners react to disfluencies? o “signal” or “noise”? o Recall issue with gestures: perhaps not intentionally communicative, but can nonetheless signal something to listener o Sensitivity to disfluencies: (lab experiments)  Perceived confidence of speakers  Ability to detect “repairs”  Effects on comprehension …  Read more in the article - Use of disfluency in anticipating reference in real time o Tasks with visual displays, measuring eye movements o Click on the ice cream o Click on the soccer ball o Click on the, uh, book o OR o Click on the book o More likelihood of visually anticipating BOOK in the disfluency condition when the noun unfolded over time o Assumption is that it would be strange for someone to repeat what they just said o Presence of disfluency allows one to predict what is coming next - Disfluency and utterance boundaries o Sandra bumped into the busboy and the waiter…told her to be careful. o Typically: slow to understand (I have to “reprocess” the sentence when final words are head) o If disfluency = present, most likely to reflect MAJOR division point in utterance o I) Sandra bumped into the busboy and the, uh, waiter told her to be careful o 2) Sandra bumped in the busy boy and the water, uh, told her to be careful o People perceive I) as more natural than (2) - Disfluencies – Summary o Produced due to sentence planning and production factors (choices, cognitive load) o Perception by listeners reflects the idea that they are not simply “edited out” (listeners use disfluencies to help predict what a speaker is trying to articulate, based on a judgement of what would/would not be difficult to say) - Language and thought (TODAY’S LECTURE) - Starting point: o Worldwide – popular assumption that language has some kind of relationship with the way we think o Today’s goal: evaluate scientific evidence for or against this idea - Challenges in framing the question o 1. What exactly is meant by ‘language’? o 2. What exactly is meant by ‘thought’? o 3. What exactly is meant by ‘affects’ or ‘influences/constrains’? o 4. How can we test the issues scientifically? o Many studies on this topic have failed to specify points 1-3 with precision and point 4 is always a significant challenge o If we don’t specify the parameters, it’s like asking if “does water affect a rock?” yes & no - Four perspective s to consider o 1. A) Does thought in general REQUIRE language? If not…  B) does language in general INFLUENCE thought? o 2. A) does knowing a specific language constrain how we think? If not…  B)Does knowing a specific language have a more subtle influence on how we think - 1a. Does language equal thought? o Core idea here: thinking is a kind of internal monologue o Why might we want to answer “yes” to this question?  People usually think they do because they talk though thinking o BUT:  What about behaviours observed in  Prelinguistic infants?  Young deaf children with hearing parents?  Animals? - Examples: animal cognition o Monkey A attacks Monkey B o Monkey B’s sibling retaliates by attacking monkey A’s siblings o What is the thought process here?  …analogical reasoning, a version of A is to B as C is to D - “Reasoning” in crows o Food source A and B o Barrier prevents dominant crow to see food source o Which one will the crows go? o Calculation based on what the other crows go to - So, does thinking require language? (are th two one and the same?) NO o Does language weaker alternative in general influence thinking?  Common test case for this question:  Studies of cognitive development in children  (assumption: evolving language experience should entail changes in cognition) - Example study: Welder and graham o Infants shown a test object, and a non-obvious property is demonstrated which is a ding sound (e.g. if you touch the top of the object, it rings) )phase 1 o Infants then shown a new test object that varies in terms of its perceptual similarity to the initial object (high/med/low) - Measure: how long infants manually explore test object (e.g. to see if this one has the same non-obvious property) o …reflects whether infant considers new object to be in the same category as initial one o Second version of experiment: same as before, except a novel label is provided for each phase (e.g. this is a flicket!”) o Results  If no label given, children rely on perceptual similarity to guide inference about category membership  (Exploration: high sim. > med sim. > low sim.)  If label provided, increases exploration and reduces differences related to perceptual similarity  Labels seem to indicate that the items belong to same category and have same characteristics o Interpretation: when label is provided, serves as cue indicating things belong to the same conceptual category o Implication: “labels” for things serve as important cues for category membership, and can overshadow perceptual criteria  When label was absent, use perceptual, when labels are provided, suddenly those categories aren’t important anymore o In this sense, language (in general, i.e. having labels for things) can “affect” thought - What about the idea that speakers of different languages might think differently? - 2a. Does knowing a specific language CONSTRAIN how we think? - Background: “natural kinds” o The natural kinds hypothesis provides one idea about how we perceive the world o Things in the external world fall “naturally” into different categories based on similar characteristics that some things have o How might this work?  One idea (“prototype theory”)  World consists of numerous objects  Objects sharing lots of properties yield “clusters” - Example: “bugs” and “food/drink” categories o Notion that things are in bundle of features and those that share the same features will fall into the same categories o We can also think of things and put them together with things that may not have a lot of commonalities - Example: “things at a picnic” o Putting some items from bugs and food/drink together in a chart o Categories don’t come to us automatically from the world - Alternative view: there are no fixed natural divisions in the world that define categories, they’re just in our head o Opens possibility that these categories are defined by aspects of human experience, including culture and/or LANGUAGE - Early studies of language and thought: key figures o Franz Boas (anthropologist)  Before Boas, less and more advanced cultures  Different culture can differ from each other and has nothing to do with advancements  Not looking at a continuum; characterizing cultures based on their own characteristics o Edward Sapir (linguist)  More objective and meaningful way to look at language  Not about sophistication or advancements in culture  Sapir did the same thing as Boas, but more in terms of language instead of culture o Benjamin Lee Whorf (insurance adjuster)  Interesting ideas on the effects of language - Whorf quote o “we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages”  So not presented in nature already and given to us - Linguistic relativity o Differences in the lexicon and syntax of languages are mirrored by non-linguistic cognitive differences o Neutral on directionality of effect:  Could be: culture  thinking  language  Or: language  thinking (what Whorf is interested in) o Correlation is not causation - Linguistic determinism o Speakers of different languages think differently BECAUSE of the differences in their languages  i.e. language  thinking - How do we conduct research on this topic? o Background: Whorf, Snow, and armchair speculation  OLD THEORY: Eskimos has many different words for the word “snow” and therefore they think differently  There are many Inuit languages in the north  Their words are not built the same way such as adjectives o Fluffy snow, crunchy snow, wet snow, etc; o It looks like new words, but it’s not. 
More Less

Related notes for PSY274H5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit