Transcript Methodological concerns (Ch 11 from Berry et al., Cross

Language
(Ch 6 from Berry et al., Cross-cultural Psychology, 2002)
Ype H. Poortinga (Prof Em)
Tilburg University, Netherlands &
University of Leuven, Belgium
Outline
Language development
Linguistic relativity
Coding and categorization of color
Spatial orientation
Universals in language
[Bilingualism]
Language development
Phonemes: languages differ in the set of phonemes, e.g., “l” and “r”
are not distinguished in Japanese, and there is an aspirated "b" in
Arabic
Note: Japanese cannot discriminate between "lead" and "read"
even when listening to recordings of their own pronunciations
Babies may distinguish phonemic categories not found in the adult
language of their environment
Description of relations between objects: Prepositions may differ; in
Finnish the handle is in the pan and the band aid is in the leg
In Korean there is a distinction between the verbs “kkita” referring
to tight fit (putting the cap on a pen) and “nehta” for loosely fitting
relations (putting books in a bag)
Both Korean and English babies of five months showed evidence of
making this distinction, but not English language adults, suggesting
a loss of a conceptual distinction
Linguistic relativity
The "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" or Whorfian hypothesis suggests
strong relationships between characteristics of language and
thinking.
“[T]he background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each
language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather
is itself a shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental
activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stockof-trade"
Whorf illustrated this with Hopi language (e.g., no time in the verb,
but a distinction between the manifested and the non-manifest)
Another example is the conditional mode in the verb indicating
that a statement is counterfactual (e.g., “If I knew French, I could
read the work of Voltaire"); Chinese does not have such a mode
of expression
According to Bloom this negatively affects the ability of speakers
of Chinese to think counterfactually, but the book notes other
evidence from South Africa
Linguistic relativity: Coding and categorization of colors
Berlin and Kay (1969) asked bilingual respondents resident in the
area of San Francisco to generate color terms in their mother
tongue and to identify these on the Munsell atlas of colors
A basic color term had four main characteristics:
(1) it is monoleximic, i.e., the meaning of the term cannot be
derived from the meaning of its parts (like in lemon-colored)
(2) the color it signifies is not included in another color term (e.g.,
scarlet is a kind of red);
(3) its usage must not be restricted to certain classes of objects;
(4) it must be psychologically salient (e.g., occasions of usage)
Finding 1: focality, i.e., across languages basic colors are
clustered
Finding 2: Many cultures do not have names for all the eleven
basic colors in English. The focal colors become encoded in the
history of a language in a (largely) fixed order
Heider/Rosch established that focal colors had a higher codability
(more rapid naming and shorter names than non-focal colors) in
23 languages
The Dani, with only two basic color terms, recognized (western)
focal better than non-focal colors after a 30’’ interval (as did
American students). Also, they learned names for focal colors
more rapid than for non-focal colors
Bornstein et al. used stimulus habituation with 4-month old
babies. With some changes the new stimulus remained within the
same color category as the original (e.g., both were "red" for an
adult observer), while with other changes of the same shift in
wave length the new stimulus would fall in another category (e.g.,
a shift from red to yellow)
Infants reacted stronger to the latter type of change. Hence,
category boundaries for babies appeared to be much the same as
for adults
Saunders and Van Brakel argue that neurophysiological processes
linking perception to color naming remain largely unknown, making
any interpretation which assumes universal mechanisms a matter
of speculation. However, the text argues that they fail to come up
with alternative evidence explaining the occurrence of color
categories in human societies everywhere
The conclusion by Bornstein (1997, p. 181) "to see colors
is to categorize the spectrum into hues" seems to be unaffected
Newer findings with the Berinmo and Himba (cf lab on perception)
indicate that color distinctions made in the respondents' own
language are easier to learn and remember than distinctions
according to the categories proposed by Berlin and Kay
Hence, linguistic experience does play a role in perception, but it is
probably best qualified as having a limited impact
Spatial orientation
Research on spatial orientation has made a major contribution to the
revival of linguistic relativity. There are languages with “ego-centric”
orientation, and those with absolute or geocentric spatial coordinates
systems (e.g., referenced on a mountain)
Levinson (1998, p. 14) infers (without appreciable evidence!):
"A relative system fits with a culture that promotes individual perspective, that is
preoccupied with viewpoint-dependent order -- as enshrined for example in
domestic architecture or writing systems, symbolisms of left and right, or
ceremonial arrangements of chattels. An absolute system permits abstraction
away from individual perspective, allowing individuals to become mere points in
a landscape ... No doubt these associations are too simplistic to fully capture
the ranges of use of either kind of system, but up to a point they seem to match
the characteristics of the societies that utilize them"
Mishra, Dasen and others have found on Bali and in India that egocentric encoding occurs even in groups primarily using absolute
coordinates. Apparently, there is flexibility in use
Universals in language
The text refers to a number of studies indicating:
- similarities in grammar (e.g., word order) and prosodics (e.g.,
intonation)
Note, this is not to deny subtle, but important differences
- limited consequences of differences (e.g. tonality)
- similarities in semantics (e.g., affective polarity; affectively
positive words are more often “un”marked in the languages
Osgood studied, and connected by “and” rather than “but”)
- effects of segmentation (based on syllable, stress, or “mora”) for
understanding.
Conclusion: The various languages in the world hardly seem to
predestine to different kinds of thinking