As We Move On...
Great work on the blogs this semester! In order to access them throughout next year, please visit the following sites...
Language and Social Blognition
Supercalafragelisticexpialadocious
Tags: Group Websites Psych 440
May 1, 2008
April 1, 2008
The Alchemy of Languaculture...
The Alchemist, Myles Pinkney
Reading Language Shock by Michael Agar has allowed me to reflect on the transformation I have undergone during my time here at Allegheny. A little over two years ago, I arrived at Allegheny with a fresh PhD in experimental psychology. Consequently, my ideas about how to test language were informed largely from an empirical, quantitative approach. Psycholinguistic research revels in such an approach--we identify the level of language of interest (orthography, phonology, semantics, syntax) and then examine that aspect of language, usually in isolation, in a controlled setting in the lab. Our participants name pictures, read words, and, occasionally, make decisions about those pictures and words. Adventurous psycholinguists present whole sentences to participants and record their reactions to sentences that end as expected versus in an unanticipated way. Obviously, these methods represent the classic "language within the circle" approach that Agar describes in his book.
I had not thought about the limitations of this approach clearly until I began working with students. Why the change? Somewhat to my surprise, students are not quite as interested in classic, "language within the circle" experiments. Instead, students who have worked with me wanted to study language in context. They wanted to know how language operated in deception, how differences in gender could lead to differences in language rituals, how images and words could be used together to teach language. All of these topics were interesting to me, but over time, they were slowly pulling me out of my comfortable circle and into the realm of sociolinguistics. It has been quite a fascinating journey.
In any event, Language Shock has allowed me to compare and contrast the relative merits of each approach--their limitations and advantages. Here are a few questions I still have regarding Agar's work...
1. Why are words and sentences Bad Data? I understood his use of this phrase in regards to the ethnocentric descriptions of culture that Boas was unhappy with...that was data which was gathered using a particular bias. I wonder if it wouldn't be more accurate to say that words and sentences are Incomplete Data.
2. Why do the differences between cultures have to "get personal"? This is a sentiment Agar repeats several times throughout his book. I suppose this has to do with the requirement that, in order for us to understand a culture, we have to experience a difference between our own culture and that particular culture to generate an awareness of these differences.
3. How can we guard against the "slippery boundary between -isms and culture?" (p. 126) I certainly recognize the danger of culture becoming a label...it's the number-one approach. How do we make sure that the differences we identify initiate an understanding of different frames with different default values? In other words, how do we initiate "a trip from rich points to understanding"? (p. 137)
February 14, 2008
A Basketfull of Eggcorns
So...I was really excited to see a reference to Language Log in our reading for today. As I mentioned at the beginning of the semester, it's a really cool site to visit if you are fascinated with language and the things people say.
For our purposes, however, it is the Eggcorn Database that is maintained by (among others) Arnold Zwicky (also from Language Log) that caught my attention for our discussion.
Tags: Eggcorns Language Log Psych 440 Zwicky
January 31, 2008
What's That??
If you've ever talked to a young child, chances are you've been encountered a "what's that?" question. The most natural response, from an adult perspective, may be to give the name of the object in question. For example, "what's that?" might result in the response "that's a pencil." One could argue that this simply reflects the question-answer ritual necessary for children to acquire their lexical vocabulary. However, is this what children are after? Have we satisfied their curiosity by giving this name-based information?
A few years ago, Nelson et al. (2004) examined this issue by showing children a number of unfamiliar objects and carefully considering the questions children asked about the objects. For example, children may ask a name-based question (e.g., what's this called? what's its name?), a function-based question (e.g., how does this work? what's it for?), or an ambiguous question (e.g., what's this? what is that?). As Figure 1 shows, across all age ranges (2, 3, and 4 years old), the most frequent question type was ambiguous, followed by function questions. Very few name-based questions were asked.
In addition to keeping track of the kinds of questions children asked, however, the researchers also varied the responses they gave children to these questions. The researchers reasoned that if children were satisfied with the information they were given, they wouldn't ask any follow-up questions. On the other hand, if the answer didn't satisfy the children, they would ask more questions. To that end, when asked an ambiguous question, the researcher would respond with either function information or name information. They recorded the number of follow-up questions the children asked after receiving one of these two answers. As Figure 2 shows, children asked significantly more follow-up questions when they initially received name-based answers. When the researcher gave them function-based answers to their initial question, children seemed to be satisfied with this response.
So...what do we take from these findings? One interesting implication of the results is that children may initially be developing concepts for novel objects that are based on function, rather than name, information. Other evidence for this possibility may be seen in the overgeneralization errors children make when they utilize the name of an object they know for a new object that seems to have similar function (e.g., using ball for all toys).
The study has some methodological challenges regarding the kinds of objects that were used and the procedure that was utilized to have children "model" the process of asking questions. However, it seems important to pursue the role of function during the initial stages of language acquisition.
Read more for a reference list of related studies...
Continue reading "What's That??" »
Tags: From the Field Function Language Acquisition Psych 440
January 22, 2008
Nine Ideas About Language
In 1983, Professor Harvey Daniels summarized the research on language to nine key points, his Nine Ideas About Language. A common theme throughout these nine ideas, however, is the idea of equality among languages. Daniels emphasizes that the rules of language are arbitrary and, therefore, differences among languages should not be considered as 'mistakes' but should be seen as equally valid, structured choices. In other words, just because Standard American English (SAE) uses a structure that places an adjective before a noun that doesn't mean this is the 'correct' word order that should be used by all languages. Similarly, there isn't anything inherently more 'right' about using the word dog to describe a furry, four-legged animal than chien or perro. These are simply the sound-object pairings for these particular languages.
I think most people would find these cross-language ideas reasonable--the difficulty, I believe, is to get people to appreciate that these same ideas apply to dialects as well. For example, if 'my car needs washed' is correct word order for Pittsburghese, then this phrase should not be perceived as "bad grammar" but as the reflection of a structured, well-ordered alternative system to SAE. Just as different languages select different combinations of words and rules, dialects do the same. However, the perception of one, inherently 'correct' dialect is a pervasive idea throughout our culture.
Sadly, the selection of a 'standard' dialect means that people who do not speak this dialect will face discrimination in school, in the work place, and in our society at large. And, yet, who stops to think about why the 'standard' dialect is the one that has been selected as 'standard.' People often refer to the idea that this is the dialect that is used on TV...well...why is it the dialect chosen for TV? The real answer to this question is one that makes us all uncomfortable...the 'standard' dialect is the dialect spoken by those in power, those who represent the majority in a culture.
"Well..." some people respond, "that's just the way it is and if you want to succeed in our society, you need to learn to speak without an accent and to use good grammar." First, everyone has an accent--the standard dialect is simply the accent that has been chosen as the default for a culture. Second, "good grammar" is a direct consequence of which dialect has been selected as standard. As Daniels points out, "the need for mastery [of the approved pattern of speech] arises only out of the prejudices of the dominant speech community and not from any intrinsic shortcomings of nonstandard American dialects."
In the end, I think Einar Haugen summarizes the importance of this issue best..."Any scorn for the languages of others is scorn for those who use it, and as such is a form of social discrimination."
What role does such discrimination play in our classrooms and on our campus? How can the negative consequences of speaking a "nonstandard" dialect be addressed? Can a culture develop that recognizes the equality of all dialects?
Tags: dialects From the Class Nine Ideas prejudice Psych 440
December 19, 2007
Language as the Stuff of Thought
One of the books we will be reading this semester is Steven Pinker's most recent work, The Stuff of Thought. Pinker, a noted psycholinguist, made the transition into the mainstream media with his book The Language Instinct, and has continued to present ideas from the fields of linguistics and psychology in ways that capture the imagination of the reading public. He is probably most known for his theory that although language per se may not be innate, the mechanism for generating and utilizing the rules of language may be.
For a summary of his work, watch Pinker's TED Talk, an 18 minute perusal of his most recent book. You can also view Pinker's demonstration of the Wug Test by watching his Scientific American Frontiers segment Born to Talk.
Tags: Cognitive Psychology Language Psych 440 Steven Pinker Stuff of Thought