A discussion and extension of Davidoff (2001). Language and Perceptual Categorisation

1
A discussion and extension of Davidoff (2001).
Language and Perceptual Categorisation

• Kelly Sorensen
• Christopher Thomas
• November 2, 2004

2
Outline

• Jules Davidoff
• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• Discussion of Language and Perceptual
  Categorisation
• Discussion of Linguistic Relativism

3
Prof. Jules Davidoff

• Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths College,
  University of London
• Research
• mental representation of objects
• relationship between the stored (memory)
  knowledge concerning objects and their
  recognition, categorisation and nameability
• effects on the way speakers of a language
  perceive, categorize and remember colors

4
Outline

• Jules Davidoff
• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• Discussion of Language and Perceptual
  Categorisation
• Discussion of Linguistic Relativism

5
Sapir-Whorf examples

• Eskimos have four different words for snow, where
  English has just one
• aput for snow on the ground
• qana for falling snow
• piqsirpoq for drifting snow
• qimuqsuq for a snowdrift

6
Whorfs conclusion

• "We have the same word for falling snow, snow on
  the ground, snow packed hard like ice, slushy
  snow, wind-driven flying snow -- whatever the
  situation may be. To an Eskimo, this
  all-inclusive word would be almost unthinkable
  he would say that falling snow, slushy snow, and
  so on, are sensuously and operationally
  different, different things to contend with he
  uses different words for them and for other kinds
  of snow."

7
Whorfs conclusion
difference in attitude or perception
difference in vocabulary
8
Introduction to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

• In linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states
  that there are certain thoughts of an individual
  in one language that cannot be understood by
  those who live in another language.
• The hypothesis states that the way people think
  is strongly affected by their native languages.
• It is a controversial theory championed by
  linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin
  Whorf.

9
Historical Notes

• Whorf was fighting against cultural evolutionary
  theory saying that Western thought is the highest
  form of thought
• Sapir and Whorf rejected hierarchical,
  quasi-evolutionary rankings of languages and
  cultures .in particular the European, especially
  Humboldtian, obsession with the superior value of
  inflectional languages for the cultural or mental
  advancement of a people. (Lucy 1997)

10
Historical Notes

• After vigorous attack from followers of Noam
  Chomsky in the following decades, the hypothesis
  is now believed by most linguists only in the
  weak sense that language can have some small
  effect on thought.

11
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis I

• Linguistic relativity
• Structural differences between languages are
  paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences
  (the structure of the language itself effects
  cognition)
• The number and the type of the basic colour words
  of a language determine how a subject sees the
  rain bow

12
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis II

• Linguistic determinism extreme "Weltanschauung
  version of the hypothesis
• The structure of a language can strongly
  influence or determine someones World View
• A World View describes a (hopefully) consistent
  and integral sense of existence and provides a
  theoretical framework for generating, sustaining
  and applying knowledge
• The Inuit can think more intelligently about snow
  because their language contains more
  sophisticated and subtle words distinguishing
  various forms of it, etc.

13
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis III

• Arbitrariness
• The semantic systems of different languages vary
  without constraint.
• This hypothesis must be tacitly assumed, because
  otherwise the claim that Linguistic Relativity
  makes is rather undramatic.
• For each decomposition of the spectrum of the
  rain bow a natural system of colour words is
  possible

14
Outline

• Jules Davidoff
• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• Discussion of Language and Perceptual
  Categorisation
• Discussion of Linguistic Relativism

15
Why/how do we determine category membership?

• Davidoff (2001) argues
• that it is linguistic similarity rather than
  perpetual similarity that is critical for
  perceptual categorization
• against the view that there are underlying,
  universal, neurophysiological mechanisms which
  determine how color is categorized

16
The case for universal color categories

• Is based on knowledge of how wavelength-sensitive
  neurons function.
• Based on the opponent-process mechanism of
  neurons, it has been argued that there are two
  elemental achromatic categories
• Black
• White
• and four elemental color categories
• Red
• Green
• Yellow
• Blue

17
The case for universal color categories cont.

• There are two wavelengths for which
  opponent-process neurons R-G give no output.
• There is also a wavelength for which the
  opponent-process neurons Y-B give no output.

18
Problems with the case for universal color
categories

• Wavelengths chosen to represent the colors blue,
  yellow, and green are not consistent with what is
  expected based on neurophysiology
• Conclusions about neurons are weakened by
  individuals previous exposure to the concept of
  blue, yellow, or green

19
Problems with the case for universal color
categories

• Neurophysiology data show that neurons can
  respond selectively to particular wavelengths or
  combinations of wavelengths and brightness no
  evidence, however, that neurons respond
  categorically.
• Davidoff thus concludes that perceptual
  categories cannot be based strictly upon
  observation.

20
The philosophical argument

• The Sorites paradox
• Take a series of colors of decreasing wavelength
  with the change below the threshold for the human
  visual system
• Agree that a patch at one end can be called red
• If red is the observational or perceptual
  category, then the next patch must also be called
  red, and so on.
• Continuing with the logic we come to the
  illogical conclusion that all colors in the
  series are red, even the blues at the other end
  of the series

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
The neuropsycological evidence

• Patients with language impairments caused by
  brain damage often behave as if the Sorites
  paradox is a reality, sorting by perceptual
  similarity without regard for categorical
  boundaries.

26
Cross-cultural theories

• Whorfian view-We dissect nature along the lines
  laid down by our language.
• Rosch- argued for a universal rather than
  language based color categories due to cognitive
  similarities between languages with few color
  terms and English.

27
Roschs universal theory

• Based upon studies of the Dani who
• have only two basic color terms but remembered
  colors in ways very similar to the English
  speakers
• Showed superior learning and memory for focal
  colors for which they had no linguistic terms
• Results were widely accepted as proof of
  universal color categories

28
Problems with Roschs universal theory

• Davidoff argues that there are potentially
  serious flaws in both the design and
  interpretation of Roschs studies
• Conflicting results found for the first study on
  two measures based on the multi-dimensional
  scaling of the same data
• Graphical demonstration showed support for
  universalist view
• Statistical results did not

29
Problems with Roschs universal theory cont.

• No explanation is given for conflicting results
• Dani speakers perform poorly on the statistical
  measures for subsequent studies as well
• Researchers unable to replicate findings with
  Berinmo population from New Guinea

30
Categorical perception

• Stimuli from the center of perceptual categories
  are classified faster than those at the edges,
  consequently discrimination of stimuli is better
  across than within categories
• In studies with Berinmo and English speakers,
  classification was consistently more closely
  aligned with the linguistic categories than with
  the underlying perceptual universals

31
Empirical support for Whorfian view (theory of
linguistic similarity)

• 1st experiment
• When making judgements of similarity between a
  group of three stimuli, participants judged two
  stimuli from the same linguistic category to be
  more similar, even thought the perceptual
  distance between each pair of stimuli were held
  equal
• No reliable tendencies were observed for those
  belonging to groups which make no linguistic
  distinctions between the categories used

32
Empirical support for Whorfian view (theory of
linguistic similarity) cont.

• 2nd experiment
• English speakers
• found the division between green and blue easier
  to learn than the arbitrary division of green
• found the division between yellow and green
  easier to learn than the division between the
  Berinmo color categories of nol and wor

33
Empirical support for Whorfian view (theory of
linguistic similarity) cont.

• Berinmo speakers
• Demonstrated no difference in difficulty for
  learning the green-blue division and the
  arbitraty green division
• Found the nol-wor division significantly easier
  to learn than the yellow-green division

34
Empirical support for Whorfian view (theory of
linguistic similarity) cont.

• 3rd experiment
• Demonstrated an effect of linguistic category in
  recognition memory
• English speakers showed significantly superior
  recognition for targets from cross-category pairs
  than for those from within-category pairs for the
  green blue boundary, but not for the nol-wor
  boundary
• 2. Berinmo speakers showed the opposite effect

35
English and Berinmo Color Categories
English color categories
Berinmo color categories
comparison
36
Davidoffs conclusions from these 3 experiments

• Categorical perception shows the influence of
  language on perception
• The structure of linguistic categories distorts
  perception by stretching perceptual distances at
  category boundaries

37
Interference studies

• Has examined whether categorical perception can
  be disrupted with verbal interference
• Verbal interference removed the cross-category
  advantage for speakers whose languages classifies
  the colors as belonging to different categories
• It appears that verbal coding (representation of
  information verbal) facilitates recall
  (information is likely encoded both visually as
  well as verbally)

38
Constraints on Whorfian view

• The argument for color categories being a product
  of language does not mean that categorization is
  unrelated to properties of the visual system
• Similar items (as defined by perceptual
  discrimination) are universally grouped together
  (e.g. would not have yellow and blue together
  without also having green between)
• Even perceptual categorization tasks can
  sometimes be solved simply by perceptual
  similarity or common association

39
Overall conclusions of the author

• Perceptual categorization is determined by
  linguistic relativity
• Being able to attend to color is different from
  understanding color categories

40
Overall conclusions of the author

• Cross-lingual evidence supports the Whorfian
  hypothesis in the number domain, in space, in
  time, and in speech perception
• Language and cognition interact children
  generalize abstract terms only if they have
  learned a label for the concrete-learning
  situation

41
Questions for future research

• Can human-primates form perceptual categories?
• There is evidence that neonates show color
  categorization. Does this reflect categorization
  of a different type?
• Are there capacity constraints on perceptual
  categorization?

42
Questions for future research

• Verbal interference affects categorization in
  memory tasks. Is the same true for perceptual
  tasks?
• Which brain areas are involved in
  perceptual-categorization?

43
Outline

• Jules Davidoff
• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
• Discussion of Language and Perceptual
  Categorisation
• Discussion of Linguistic Relativism

44
More Evidence in favor of linguistic relativism

• Chinese children count earlier than American
  children
• (In part) because Chinese numbers are more
  systematic

45
More Evidence in favor of linguistic relativism
Mayans similarity judgments are more influenced
by material (as appropriate for mass nouns),
rather than shape (as appropriate for count nouns)
46
But then

• What does this evidence really say about the
  influence of language on thought?
• Especially in the case of colors, is it more a
  matter of what weve learned?
• Painters can name more colors.
• We can look at colors from different points of
  view
• Warm or cold colors
• Pastel or vivid colors

47
Pinker against Sapir-Whorf

• Supposed limitations on expression in various
  languages are based on faulty linguistic
  understanding.
• Hopi does have words for time, etc.
• Translation between languages is possible (even
  if difficult to do elegantly).

http//www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2002/ling
001/thought.html
48
Pinker against Sapir-Whorf

• Thought is possible without language.
• Adults who have grown up without language.
• Babies before they learn language.
• Primates and other animals that never learn
  language.
• Adults who reason and create in visual or other
  modes.

http//www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2002/ling
001/thought.html
49
Pinker against Sapir-Whorf

• Language is an inadequate medium for the direct
  encoding of thought.
• We often can't think of the right word to express
  ourselves.
• Language contains ambiguity, homophony, etc.
• Manipulation of visual images is done directly.
• ? Pinker suggests a nonverbal language which he
  calls Mentalese

http//www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2002/ling
001/thought.html
50
Questions

• Do euphemisms make us think differently about a
  fact?
• negative growth, collateral damage, peace force
• retarded, mentally disabled, mentally challenged
• Does the convention of using the male form
  support patriarchic views or is it just an
  indication?

51
Questions

• Can we think about categorization without
  language?
• For visually similar items
• For abstract categorizations

52
The common denominator

• In an experiment similar to Davidoffs, Kay and
  Kempton came to the following conclusions
• The extreme ("Weltanschauung") version of this
  idea, that all thought is constrained by
  language, has been disproved
• The opposite extreme that language does not
  influence thought at all is also widely
  considered to be false

53
Synthesis?

• Looking at Pinkers objections, is there
  something underlying language that is more
  influential?
• Is it the language that influences our perception
  or rather the culture we live in?
• Lakoff suggests that cultures have deeply rooted
  conceptual metaphors that
• find their expressions in the language
• guide our perception

54
References

• Paul Kay, Willett Kempton What is the
  Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist,
  New Series, Vol. 86, No.1, March 1984, 65-79
• http//www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2002/ling
  001/thought.html
• Jules Davidoff Language and Perceptual
  Categorisation. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences
  Vol.5 No.9 September 2001, 382-387
• George Lakoff Mark Johnson. (1980) Metaphors We
  Live By. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
• John A. Lucy. Linguistic Relativity. Annu. Rev.
  Anthropol. 1997. 26291-312