Pitfalls in the language-thought distinction: a view on studies of linguistic relativity

Transcription

1 Pitfalls in the language-thought distinction: a view on studies of linguistic relativity Holden Härtl Universität Kassel [email protected]

2 Introduction Linguistic relativity hypothesis: We dissect nature anlong lines laid down by our native language [ ] 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 system in our minds. see Whorf (1956: 213); cf. Pederson et al. (1998), Boroditsky et al. (2003) 3

3 Introduction The LRH is compatible with (at least) two different models of cognition. The particular language we speak and its grammar shape our thought NON-LINGUISTIC COGNITION LINGUISTIC COGNITION THOUGHT GRAMMAR COGNITION = LANGUAGE

4 Contents Can we test linguistic relativity at all? How circular are the empirical arguments? What are potential solutions? Do we have to take the philosophical doubts seriously? 1 Empirical language-thought research and problems Grammatical gender Event conceptualization 2 Circularity problem Thinking for speaking 3 Philosophical notions of circularity Language apriori Unaviodability of language 5

5 Object perception and gender der MASC Apfel die FEM Birne Do we attribute specific biological qualities to inanimate objects? Apparently yes: Boroditsky et al. (2003) show that grammatical gender influences perception and memorization of objects. Germans remembered a male name (Patrick) for APPLE better than a female one (Patricia). Spanish subjects showed opposite results (MANZANA, Patricia). Patricia Patrick 6

6 Object perception and gender Picture similarity test: Spanish subjects > German subjects la tostadora der Toaster = cf. Phillipps & Boroditsky (2003) 7

7 Object perception and gender Picture similarity test: German subjects > Spanish subjects la cuchara der Löffel = cf. Phillipps & Boroditsky (2003) 8

8 Pitfall 1 Circularity of the argument

9 Circularity problem Objection and alternative explanation: Don t the participants simply name the objects internally? From this the detected similarity between der Löffel und der Prinz follows logically!! So, people do not perceive the two alike, they are just labeled in similar ways! der Löffel der Prinz 10

10 Solution 1 Block the language system Try to strain the language system thus obstructing internal naming: Results were identical and the authors conclude that the picture similarity effect is indeed based on non-linguistic associations. cf. Phillipps & Boroditsky (2003) 11

11 Solution 2 Invent a new cognitive level Other studies have shown that only word stimuli elicit gender effects: asino ( Esel ) = cammello ( Kamel ) (Non-linguistic) pictures do not trigger Whorfian effects: Explanation: Gender information does not influence non-linguistic representations but the level of (linguistically oriented) Thinking for speaking. cf. Vigliocco et al. (2005); Slobin (1996) 12

12 Thinking for speaking Konzeptualisierung Thinking for speaking Außersprachliches Wissen (Episodisches und Weltwissen) Formulierung Mentales Lexikon Grammatische Repräsentation Artikulierung Phonetische Repräsentation Abbildung: Modell der Sprachproduktion (vereinfacht) s. Levelt (1989); Slobin (1996) 13

13 Thinking for speaking Eye-tracking studies show similar TfS-effects for event conceptualization. At 0 ms after SO: PATH-VP + MANNER-PP Greek English MANNER-VP+ PATH-PP see Papafragou et al. (2008) 14

14 Thinking for speaking Eye-tracking studies show similar TfS-effects for event conceptualization. At 1500 ms after SO: PATH-VP + MANNER-PP Greek English MANNER-VP+ PATH-VP Crucially, the effect was found only for verbalization; no Whorf-effect for (non-linguistic) memorization of the events. Conclusion: Language affect TfS only and nothing beyond. 15

15 Pitfall 2: Can we look beyond language?

16 A philosophical issue: Language apriori Herder s circularity criticism: C: Language is a product of thought, which is independent from language. Herder: But you can only have thought if you have language. THOUGHT LANGUAGE Language apriori (à la Wittgenstein, Herder, Davidson, Heidegger, etc.): All knowledge is based on language. Cognitive-psychological evidence (cf. de Villiers & de Villiers 2000): Mastering (false) beliefs depends on linguistic abilities and propositional embedding; test group: deaf children with delayed language development 17

17 A philosophical issue: Language apriori Bierwisch s (2008) answer: Propositional knowledge is based on language. Everything thinkable is expressible. (à la Searle 1969) Language separates propositional thought from everything beyond. Bierwisch s examples of beyond language (i.e. non-propositional) knowledge: Face recognition Music comprehension 18

18 A philosophical issue: Unavoidability But even if we accept knowledge beyond language, can we access it at all? Problem: Unavoidability ( Unhintergehbarkeit ) of language If language relates to propositional knowledge only, this implies that there is no linguistic means available to consult non-linguistic knowledge. Wittgenstein (1922): Denn um dem Denken eine Grenze zu ziehen, müssten wir beide Seiten dieser Grenze denken können (wir müssten also denken können, was sich nicht denken lässt. So, in a strict sense, any empirical / experimental approach towards nonlinguistic cognition fails from the outset because the approach itself is always in some sense linguistic. Solution:??? 19

19 Summary Research on linguistic relativity of thought presumes a separation of linguistic from non-linguistic cognition (otherwise it would be trivial). Empirical research is challenged by the circularity problem: Are the empirical effects really non-linguistic in nature? A (pretty trivial) solution is to implement a linguistically oriented level of non-linguistic cognition (thus accepting circularity): Thinking for speaking. The circularity problem has its underpinnings in the philosophical notions of the language apriori and the unavoidability of language, of which at least the latter seems somehow serious to me. Thank you. 20

20 Literatur Bierwisch, Manfred. (2008): Bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Sprache die Grenzen meiner Welt? In: H. Kämper & L. M. Eichinger (eds.), Sprache Kognition Kultur. IDS-Jahrbuch 2007, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bertram, Georg. (2011): Sprachphilosophie. Hamburg: Junius. Boroditsky, L.; Schmidt, L. A.; Phillips, W. (2003): Sex, Syntax, and Semantics. In: Dedre Gentner und Susan Goldin (Hg.): Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, S Carroll, J. B. (Hg.) (1956): Language, Thought and Reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. De Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2000): Linguistic determinism and the understanding of false beliefs. In P. Mitchell and K. Riggs. (Eds.), Children s reasoning and the mind (pp ). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press. Gardt, Andreas (2001): Beeinflusst die Sprache unser Denken? Ein Überblick über Positionen der Sprachtheorie. In: Andrea Lehr et al. (Hg.): Sprache im Alltag. Beiträge zur neuen Perspektiven der Linguistik. Herbert Ernst Wiegand zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter, Gentner, Dedre; Goldin, Susan (Hg.) (2003): Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Online verfügbar unter Goddard, Angela; Patterson, Lindsey Meân (2009): Language and gender (2nd. Edition). London, New York: Routledge. Online verfügbar unter Gumperz, John Joseph; Levinson, Stephen C. (Hg.) (1996): Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. Online verfügbar unter Härtl, Holden (2009): Linguistische Relativität und die 'Sprache-und-Denken'-Debatte. Implikationen, Probleme und mögliche Lösungen aus Sicht der kognitionswissenschaftlichen Linguistik. In: Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 51, S Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989): Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Online verfügbar unter Papafragou, Anna; Hulbert, Justin; Trueswell, John (2008): Does Language Guide Event Perception? Evidence from Eye Movements. In: Cognition 108, S Online verfügbar unter Pederson, Eric; Danziger, Eve; Wilkins, David; Levinson, Stephen; Kita, Sotaro; Senft, Gunter (1998): Semantic Typology and Spatial Conceptualization. In: Language 74 (3), S Phillips, W.; Boroditsky, L. (2003): Can Quirks of Grammar Affect the Way You Think? Grammatical Gender and Object Concepts. In: Richard Alterman und David Kirsh (Hg.): Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society, S Slobin, Dan. I. (1996): From "Thought and Language" to "Thinking for Speaking". In: John Joseph Gumperz und Stephen C. Levinson (Hg.): Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press, S Vigliocco, Gabriella; Vinson, David P.; Paganelli, Federica; Dworzynski, Katharina (2005): Grammatical Gender Effects on Cognition. Implications for Language Learning and Language Use. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology 134, S Whorf, B. L. (1956): Science and Linguistics. In: J. B. Carroll (Hg.): Language, Thought and Reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922): Tractatus logica-philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, in: Schriften, Band 1, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958): Philosophical investigations. Blackwell: Basil.