Beyond Whorf: How Language Affects Thought

Beyond Whorf: How Language Affects Thought Proponent: Gary Lupyan Carnegie Mellon University gl@cmu.edu Lera Boroditsky Terry Regier Debi Roberson Robert Goldstone Stanford University lera@stanford.edu University of Chicago regier@uchicago.edu University of Essex robedd@essec.ac.uk Indiana University rgold- sto@indiana.edu In addition to cross-linguistic Whorfian effects discussed in recent literature (e.g., Boroditsky, 2001; Gumperz & Levin- son, 1996; Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003) there is accu- mulating evidence that language more generally has deep effects on cognitive processes both long-term and on-line. The findings presented in this symposium implicate language in perceptual encoding, forming and maintaining categories, guiding attention, and memory. Mechanisms by which lan- guage affects and does not affect cognition will be discussed. Lera Boroditsky The Mechanisms Through Which Patterns in Language Affect Thought Do people who speak different languages think differently about the world? Does learning new languages change the way you think? Do polyglots think differently when speaking different languages? I will present several lines of cross- linguistic experiments illustrating how the languages we speak shape the way we attend to, represent, and remember our experiences in the world. The talk will focus on the mechanisms through which patterns in language can have long-term and on-line influences on cognition. gories, both cross-culturally in a naturalistic setting and in an experimental setting where learning experiences were ma- nipulated (Roberson, Davidoff, Davies & Shapiro, 2004; O’Hanlon & Roberson, in press). The results suggest that the process of concept acquisition is remarkably similar even in widely differing cultures, and that color category acquisition is slow and effortful for children, regardless of how many categories must be learnt. Moreover, both attentional and linguistic factors contribute to the process of color term learn- ing. In an experimental setting, more was learned about novel color terms when both attentional and linguistic aspects of the learning context converged for both English and Italian chil- dren. Robert Goldstone Terry Regier How Labels Change Contents Unlike paper labels applied onto cans, category labels applied to objects can penetrate “inside” to affect the contents. I will consider two mechanisms by which experience labeling ob- jects can affect perceptual representations of the labeled ob- jects. Labeling can lead to unitized perceptual encodings whereby a single perceptual chunk is created for a complex assembly of stimulus components. It can also lead to differen- tiation, whereby perceptual dimensions that were originally fused become split apart. I will describe how these mecha- nisms can be computationally reconciled by a concept learn- ing system that creates appropriate units to support important labels. The experiments and model suggest that labeling and perceptual encoding mutually influence each other. Labels are not simply attached to the outputs of independent perceptual processes, but instead modify the nature of the outputs. Color language and cognition: Which side are you on, anyway? The debate over color language and cognition is framed by two opposing views. The ‘universalist’ view holds that there are universals of color cognition that also constrain color naming. The 'relativist' view, in contrast, holds that color categories are defined at their boundaries by linguistic con- vention, and that color naming shapes color cognition, rather than the other way around. So which view is right? An inter- esting combination of both, I will argue. I will present data supporting universal tendencies in color naming, and will also present data showing that color naming affects color cogni- tion. However, in a departure from the usual framing of the debate, we find that language affects perception in only half of the visual field - the right half—a pattern predicted by the functional organization of the brain. (Collaborative work with Aubrey Gilbert, Paul Kay, and Richard Ivry). Gary Lupyan Debi Roberson Labels Help us Learn, but Make us Forget I will discuss results from several recent experiments to sup- port this claim. The first shows that verbal labels help adults form novel categories even when the labels are entirely re- dundant, providing no information about the structure of the categories. Categories learned with labels are not only learned faster, but are more robust. The second line of evidence shows that labeling familiar objects results in worse memory for particular instances of the labeled categories. Seeing a chair and labeling it as “chair” makes it more difficult to re- member which chair you saw. The facilitatory effect of labels on categorization may come at the cost of accurate encoding of individual exemplars. These results are predicted by a model implementing the language feedback hypothesis which argues that category labels (words) feed back to affect seman- tic and perceptual representations. How Language Helps Category Acquisition. A large body of recent research has highlighted the tight links between language and cognition. An outstanding question concerns the mechanisms by which language might help to shape cognitive organization and our categorization of the perceived world. In a series of recent experiments we have examined the processes by which children acquire color cate-