Words and Concepts

Undergraduate Lecture

Transcript

1. Words and concepts II
   Language and Thought
   8 July 2014
   Molly Lewis
   

   View Slide

2. Words and concepts
   Smallest unit of meaningful language: words
   The meaning of words: concepts
   What are concepts?
   

   View Slide

3. CAKE
   Concept: A mental representation that allows for
   grouping things in the world together as similar
   

   View Slide

4. Conceptual space is continuous
   Color
   ….and there are an infinite number of ways to cut it up.
   “cake” “cupcake” “pie”
   Desserts
   “pifo” “dax”
   

   View Slide

5. Different languages organize this
   space in different ways
   (Regier, Kay, & Khetarpal, 2006)
   

   View Slide

6. The Puzzle
   1. Words are related to concepts
   2. Conceptual space is continuous
   3. There are an infinite number of ways to
   organize
   4. Different language organize it in different
   ways
   5. …Does this matter?
   

   View Slide

7. Does it matter?
   (How are words related to concepts?)
   Some hypotheses:
   1. Words do not affect concepts in any way.
   2. Words make it easier to communicate about a
   concept.
   3. Words make it easier to think about a concept (e.g.
   faster to identify category member).
   4. Words guide categorization when using language.
   5. Words guide categorization even when not using
   language.
   6. Words guide how you perceive the world.
   7. If you don’t have a word for a concept, it’s
   impossible to think about that concept
   

   View Slide

8. The outline for today
   The relationship between words and
   concepts in different domains
   Domain #1: Color [Last week]
   Domain #2: Entities
   Domain #3: Events
   Domain #4: Number
   

   View Slide

9. Domain #2: Entities
   Imai & Gentner (1997)
   

   View Slide

10. Entities
    Animate Discrete Inanimate Discrete Inanimate Non-discrete
    How does English break up this space of meaning?
    “A boy” “A hammer” x “A sand”
    “Two boys” “Two hammers” x “two sands”
    “two cups of sands”
    

    View Slide

11. How does language shape understanding of
    entities?
    • Hypothesis #1: Independent of language (universal)
    • Hypothesis #2: Shapes understanding
    

    View Slide

12. The origins of the structure of
    entity conceptual space
    Tested how speakers of both languages
    organized the conceptual space
    – If organize the same…
    • structure of entity conceptual space not the result
    of language (universal)
    – If organize differently…
    • structure of entity conceptual space shaped by the
    structure of language
    (Imai & Gentner, 1997)
    

    View Slide

13. Task
    (Imai & Gentner, 1997)
    “Look at this dax. Point to the tray that also has the dax on it.”
    

    View Slide

14. Design
    (Imai & Gentner, 1997)
    2 year olds, 2.5 year-olds, 4 year-olds, and adults
    English and Japanese speakers
    

    View Slide

15. Predictions?
    LANGUAGE
    TASK
    H1: Independent of
    language
    H2: Shaped by
    language
    

    View Slide

16. Predictions
    Hypothesis 1: Independent of language
    – Young children who are first learning
    language should show English-pattern,
    regardless of language
    Hypothesis 2: Due to language
    – Speakers of different languages should differ
    • English: objects by shape and substances by
    substance
    • Japanese: Random between shape and substance
    

    View Slide

17. Results
    

    View Slide

18. Discussion
    • Which hypothesis supported?
    • On the one hand, evidence for universal
    differentiations between substances and
    objects
    • On the other hand, linguistic differences
    

    View Slide

19. Imai and Gentner
    • “Children begin learning word meanings
    building on their pre-linguistic ontological
    knowledge about individuation.”
    • “Language learning leads children to pay
    attention to those aspects of the world that
    are habitually used in their own language,
    and this influence begins very early.”
    • “Finally, children’s sensitivity to linguistically-
    relevant aspects of the world may come to
    extend beyond the context of language
    use.”
    

    View Slide

20. Domain #3: Events
    Gennari, Sloman, Malt, & Fitch (2002)
    

    View Slide

21. ENGLISH: “The girl is running out of the house” [manner]
    SPANISH: “The girl is leaving the house quickly” [path]
    Describe this picture.
    

    View Slide

22. English: Manner Language
    The girl ran (out of the house).
    MANNER PATH
    Spanish: Path Language
    Salió (corriendo).
    PATH MANNER
    3SG.leave (running)
    

    View Slide

23. Events
    manner path
    How does language shape understanding of
    events?
    • Hypothesis #1: Independent of language (universal)
    • Hypothesis #2: shaped by language
    

    View Slide

24. Task
    TARGET
    Path Alternate Manner Alternate
    Either describe
    or just watch
    

    View Slide

25. Results
    

    View Slide

26. Discussion
    • How interpret this?
    • Spanish speakers selected the same-path
    alternate because this was the dimension
    more often attended to during naming
    • Conscious or unconscious?
    

    View Slide

27. Domain #4: Number
    Frank, Everett, Fedorenko, & Gibson (2008)
    

    View Slide

28. Animals, babies and adults able to discriminate large
    quantities approximately
    

    View Slide

29. Number
    Humans have EXACT representation of number, too.
    And, (unlike animals), we also have number words.
    “one” “two” “three”, etc….
    

    View Slide

30. “one” “two” “three”, etc….
    How does language shape understanding of
    number?
    • Hypothesis #1: Independent of language (universal)
    • Hypothesis #2: Due to language
    How would you test this?
    

    View Slide

31. Piraha people of Brazil: No words for exact number!
    a monolingual hunter–gatherer tribe living in the Amazon rainforest
    

    View Slide

32. Piraha people of Brazil: No words for exact number!
    

    View Slide

33. Tasks
    One-to-one “Nuts in a can”
    

    View Slide

34. Results
    

    View Slide

35. Discussion
    • Which hypothesis supported?
    • On the one hand, conceptual knowledge
    of exact number
    • On the other hand, difficulty with memory
    tasks
    

    View Slide

36. Frank et al.
    • “This evidence argues against the strong
    Whorfian claim that language for number creates
    the concept of exact quantity (and
    correspondingly, that without language for
    number, any task requiring an exact match would
    be impossible).”
    • “Instead, the case of Piraha suggests that
    languages that can express large, exact
    cardinalities have a more modest effect on the
    cognition of their speakers: They allow the
    speakers to remember and compare information
    about cardinalities accurately across space, time,
    and changes in modality.”
    

    View Slide

37. The Puzzle
    1. Words are related to concepts
    2. Conceptual space is continuous
    3. There are an infinite number of ways to
    organize
    4. Different language organize it in different
    ways
    5. …Does this matter?
    

    View Slide

38. Does it matter?
    Four domains:
    Domain #1: Color [Last week]
    Domain #2: Entities
    Domain #3: Events
    Domain #4: Number
    

    View Slide

39. How are words and concepts related?
    Some hypotheses:
    1. Words do not affect concepts in any way.
    2. Words make it easier to communicate about a
    concept.
    3. Words make it easier to think about a concept (e.g.
    faster to identify category member).
    4. Words guide categorization when using language.
    5. Words guide categorization even when not using
    language.
    6. Words guide how you perceive the world.
    7. If you don’t have a word for a concept, it’s
    impossible to think about that concept
    Which do you think is most right in these domains?
    

    View Slide