Barbara Landau: Does Language Change Thought?

00:53:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTKXDWYYqLI

Resumen

TLDRSusan Goldin-Meadow introduces Barbara Landau, a distinguished researcher in language and cognition. Landau's work explores how language influences thought, particularly in children, including those with disabilities. She discusses two main hypotheses: one suggesting that language shapes non-linguistic thought, and another proposing that having language transforms thought processes. Landau presents her 'recoating hypothesis,' which posits that language provides a formalism that enhances cognitive abilities without altering underlying non-linguistic representations. She emphasizes the momentary effects of language on cognition and highlights the importance of syntactic structures in shaping thought.

Para llevar

  • 👩‍🏫 Susan Goldin-Meadow introduces Barbara Landau.
  • 📚 Landau's research focuses on language and cognition.
  • 🧠 Language influences thought, especially in children.
  • 🔍 Two main hypotheses: language shapes thought vs. transforms thought.
  • 🔄 The recoating hypothesis suggests language enhances cognition.
  • 📝 Syntax plays a crucial role in shaping thought.
  • 👶 Blind children learn meanings of visual words through language.
  • 🌈 Language affects how we categorize colors and spatial relationships.
  • 💡 Language provides cognitive advantages in development.
  • 🔬 Empirical research supports Landau's theories.

Cronología

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Susan Goldin-Meadow introduces Barbara Landau, highlighting her academic background and significant contributions to research on spatial cognition and language development in children, including those with disabilities.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Barbara Landau expresses gratitude for the William James Award and introduces her talk on whether language changes thought, outlining two perspectives on the interaction between language and thought.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    Landau discusses the blind men and the elephant analogy to illustrate how different perspectives lead to different conclusions about whether language affects thought, presenting two opposing views in the field.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    She reflects on her early research interests, particularly regarding the development of language in congenitally blind children, and how they acquire meanings for words despite lacking sensory experiences.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Landau introduces the Worfian hypothesis, which suggests that the language one speaks influences their thought processes, and discusses its implications in popular literature and research.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    She presents two versions of the Worfian hypothesis: one suggesting that language reshapes non-linguistic thought, and the other proposing that having a language radically transforms thought, particularly in spatial reasoning.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    Landau critiques the first version, questioning the clarity of what changes in perceptual discrimination, and discusses the second version's reliance on language as a necessary component for cognitive transformation.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    She proposes a third hypothesis, the recoating hypothesis, suggesting that language provides a formalism that aids cognition without altering non-linguistic representations, illustrated through experiments on color and location binding in children.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:45:00

    Landau shares experimental findings showing that language can enhance cognitive performance in tasks involving color and location, emphasizing the momentary effects of linguistic input on cognition.

  • 00:45:00 - 00:53:37

    In conclusion, Landau asserts that while language does not fundamentally change non-linguistic thought, it provides significant advantages in cognitive processes, particularly through its structural properties.

Ver más

Mapa mental

Vídeo de preguntas y respuestas

  • Who is Barbara Landau?

    Barbara Landau is a professor and researcher known for her work on language and cognition, particularly in children.

  • What is the main focus of Barbara Landau's research?

    Her research focuses on how language influences thought and cognitive development, especially in children with disabilities.

  • What are the two main hypotheses regarding language and thought?

    One hypothesis suggests that language shapes non-linguistic thought, while the other proposes that having language transforms thought processes.

  • What is the recoating hypothesis?

    The recoating hypothesis suggests that language provides a formalism that enhances cognitive abilities without changing underlying non-linguistic representations.

  • How does language affect cognition according to Landau?

    Language has momentary effects on cognition, providing advantages through its structure and formalism.

  • What role does syntax play in language and thought?

    Syntax is crucial as it helps to specify relationships and alters the prominence of entities in thought.

  • What is the significance of Landau's work on blind children?

    Her work shows that blind children can learn the meanings of visual words despite lacking sensory input, highlighting the role of language structure.

  • What are some examples of how language influences thought?

    Language can influence how we categorize colors, understand spatial relationships, and even infer mental states.

  • What is the relationship between language and cognitive development in children?

    Language plays a significant role in cognitive development, providing tools for children to enhance their understanding of the world.

  • What is the importance of empirical research in Landau's work?

    Empirical research provides evidence for her theories on the interaction between language and thought, supporting her hypotheses.

Ver más resúmenes de vídeos

Obtén acceso instantáneo a resúmenes gratuitos de vídeos de YouTube gracias a la IA.
Subtítulos
en
Desplazamiento automático:
  • 00:00:04
    okay good morning everyone my name is
  • 00:00:08
    susan goldin-meadow and it is a really
  • 00:00:10
    tremendous honor and privilege for me to
  • 00:00:12
    be able to introduce barbara land out to
  • 00:00:15
    you barbara did her doctoral studies at
  • 00:00:17
    the university of pennsylvania where she
  • 00:00:19
    worked with lila glieben who was also my
  • 00:00:21
    advisor a number of years earlier which
  • 00:00:23
    makes barbara my academic sister which
  • 00:00:25
    is really terrific since i don't have
  • 00:00:26
    any sisters so i love it
  • 00:00:28
    Barbara has been bicoastal in her jobs
  • 00:00:31
    having successfully skirted the Midwest
  • 00:00:33
    her first job was on the East Coast at
  • 00:00:36
    Columbia University she then went to the
  • 00:00:38
    University of California at Irvine and
  • 00:00:40
    finally came back to the east to the
  • 00:00:41
    University of Delaware where she is now
  • 00:00:43
    the Johns Hopkins universe where she is
  • 00:00:46
    now the dick and Lydia Todd professor
  • 00:00:49
    and director of the science of learning
  • 00:00:50
    Institute so Barbara has done seminal
  • 00:00:53
    research on how experiential variation
  • 00:00:56
    and genetic variation interact with
  • 00:00:58
    developmental process to promote or to
  • 00:01:01
    limit the development of spatial
  • 00:01:03
    cognition and language she not only
  • 00:01:05
    studies typically developing children
  • 00:01:07
    but also can generally blind children
  • 00:01:09
    and children with Williams syndrome in
  • 00:01:11
    our early groundbreaking studies Barbara
  • 00:01:14
    showed that congenitally blind infants
  • 00:01:16
    acquire language just like sighted
  • 00:01:18
    children including words such as look
  • 00:01:22
    and see which you might not think blind
  • 00:01:23
    children would be able to understand and
  • 00:01:25
    Barbara show that they did she also
  • 00:01:27
    showed that blind children can navigate
  • 00:01:29
    untraveled routes in a novel spatial
  • 00:01:32
    environment making it clear that they
  • 00:01:34
    have intact geometric representations
  • 00:01:36
    and spatial reasoning but Barbara's not
  • 00:01:39
    only made empirical contributions she's
  • 00:01:41
    also proposed an important theory
  • 00:01:43
    involving the differential maturational
  • 00:01:45
    rates of dorsal and ventral streams in
  • 00:01:47
    the brain that explains how spatial
  • 00:01:49
    representation and language can go awry
  • 00:01:52
    in development Barbara's theory provides
  • 00:01:55
    a novel explanation of the abilities and
  • 00:01:57
    disabilities of in Williams syndrome a
  • 00:01:59
    rare genetic disorder with an unusual
  • 00:02:02
    pattern of cognition that spares
  • 00:02:04
    language but profoundly impairs spatial
  • 00:02:07
    cognition so as you know Barbara is
  • 00:02:10
    receiving the William James Award for
  • 00:02:12
    distinguished achievements in
  • 00:02:13
    Psychological Science today and you will
  • 00:02:15
    soon see why and she tells us about
  • 00:02:18
    why how language changes thought in her
  • 00:02:20
    talk Thank You Susan
  • 00:02:28
    very much for that kind introduction and
  • 00:02:30
    it's a pleasure to be here and of course
  • 00:02:32
    I'm very grateful to and honored to have
  • 00:02:35
    received the William James fellow award
  • 00:02:39
    Susan mentioned that I do work on a
  • 00:02:41
    typically developing children I'm going
  • 00:02:43
    to talk about none of that today just
  • 00:02:45
    for those of you who are wondering it is
  • 00:02:46
    all about typically developing children
  • 00:02:48
    and the question that I'm going to ask
  • 00:02:50
    is whether language changes thought so
  • 00:02:55
    in general the field has two ways of
  • 00:02:58
    thinking about the language and thought
  • 00:02:59
    interaction there are two directions
  • 00:03:01
    that one can consider one direction is
  • 00:03:04
    thinking about whether thought
  • 00:03:06
    pre-linguistic thought serves as the the
  • 00:03:10
    the the support for language learning
  • 00:03:13
    and we have very distinguished
  • 00:03:16
    philosophers and psychologists jerry
  • 00:03:18
    fodor Rene Byers Aldous balki who have
  • 00:03:20
    done tremendous work on understanding
  • 00:03:23
    what the pre linguistic logic could be
  • 00:03:26
    that could support language learning the
  • 00:03:29
    other way of thinking about the language
  • 00:03:30
    thought interaction is that language
  • 00:03:34
    effects thought and of course that's
  • 00:03:36
    what I'm going to focus on today within
  • 00:03:39
    this issue there again two different
  • 00:03:41
    ways of thinking about whether or not
  • 00:03:43
    language effects thought so one way is
  • 00:03:46
    to think about whether learning a
  • 00:03:47
    particular language changes non
  • 00:03:50
    linguistic thought so we have more than
  • 00:03:52
    5,000 languages today across the world
  • 00:03:55
    and the question is if you learn
  • 00:03:56
    language a versus language B does that
  • 00:03:58
    change your non linguistic
  • 00:04:00
    representations or the way that you
  • 00:04:01
    think non linguistically the other way
  • 00:04:04
    of thinking about this question whether
  • 00:04:05
    language affects thought is to think
  • 00:04:07
    about what happens if you have a
  • 00:04:09
    language that is our newest species that
  • 00:04:12
    has a language and so here we can
  • 00:04:13
    compare human babies and young children
  • 00:04:16
    who of course do acquire language very
  • 00:04:18
    effortlessly early in life and the
  • 00:04:21
    language has very deep properties as
  • 00:04:23
    compared to let's say chicks or mice or
  • 00:04:26
    rats who will never have a language they
  • 00:04:28
    just simply don't have the capacities
  • 00:04:29
    languages species specific
  • 00:04:31
    so there are two different kinds of
  • 00:04:33
    questions whether learning a particular
  • 00:04:35
    language a versus B changes non
  • 00:04:36
    linguistic thought and then there's
  • 00:04:38
    another question whether having any
  • 00:04:40
    language at all changes non linguistic
  • 00:04:42
    thought so does language change thought
  • 00:04:45
    and if so how well I'm going to argue
  • 00:04:49
    that the answer of this question depends
  • 00:04:51
    in part on what part of the problem you
  • 00:04:54
    happen to be looking at and here we have
  • 00:04:57
    the the blind man with the elephant
  • 00:05:00
    blind men exploring the elephant and for
  • 00:05:02
    those of you who aren't familiar with
  • 00:05:03
    this with this sort of cartoonish
  • 00:05:08
    instantiation of the question every
  • 00:05:11
    person blindfolded person is exploring
  • 00:05:14
    the elephant and the question is what is
  • 00:05:16
    an elephant and of course depending on
  • 00:05:17
    where you look depending on where you're
  • 00:05:19
    feeling you have a different answer so
  • 00:05:21
    for this person the elephant might be
  • 00:05:24
    something that's long and thin for this
  • 00:05:25
    person the elephant might be something
  • 00:05:27
    that's broad and wrinkly and so forth so
  • 00:05:29
    it depends on where you're looking
  • 00:05:31
    locally whether or not what you think
  • 00:05:34
    the elephant is similarly if you're
  • 00:05:37
    asking the question does language change
  • 00:05:38
    thought the field in general depending
  • 00:05:40
    on where they have looked have come up
  • 00:05:42
    with two different answers very distinct
  • 00:05:44
    ones and those are definitely yes it
  • 00:05:46
    does and definitely not no it doesn't so
  • 00:05:50
    that's what we're going to try to deal
  • 00:05:51
    with today and what I'm gonna do in the
  • 00:05:55
    talk is to review it basically two
  • 00:05:57
    prominent hypotheses that I sort of
  • 00:05:59
    think capture the way that people think
  • 00:06:01
    about the language thought interaction
  • 00:06:03
    whether language affects thought and I'm
  • 00:06:05
    gonna offer a third hypothesis which I
  • 00:06:07
    think accounts for the existing data as
  • 00:06:08
    well as much other data but first I want
  • 00:06:11
    to go back in history a little bit and
  • 00:06:13
    give you a little bit of background with
  • 00:06:14
    respect to my own interests in language
  • 00:06:17
    and thought and Susan already covered
  • 00:06:18
    some of this the early probe for me
  • 00:06:21
    about the language thought relationship
  • 00:06:23
    had to do with the growth and
  • 00:06:25
    development of a child who was born
  • 00:06:27
    blind the child who's who's blind from
  • 00:06:29
    birth and my question at the time was
  • 00:06:32
    what is the role of sensory and
  • 00:06:33
    perceptual experience and how does it
  • 00:06:35
    interact with what I'm gonna call mind
  • 00:06:37
    driven aspects of our knowledge that is
  • 00:06:39
    to say some of our information comes
  • 00:06:40
    from exploring the world either visually
  • 00:06:43
    or haptically if we're blind
  • 00:06:44
    but some information and some knowledge
  • 00:06:46
    comes specifically from the mind itself
  • 00:06:49
    and this work which was done in
  • 00:06:52
    conjunction with Lila Blackman who was
  • 00:06:53
    my advisor at the time of my PhD drove
  • 00:06:58
    us to some some very substantial
  • 00:07:00
    conclusions which I'll just detail very
  • 00:07:02
    very quickly that really do emphasize
  • 00:07:05
    the importance of having a mind a human
  • 00:07:08
    mind in exploring and learning things
  • 00:07:10
    about the world when I began my thinking
  • 00:07:15
    about this it actually was as Susan said
  • 00:07:18
    I arrived just after she had done her
  • 00:07:20
    dissertation and she and heidi Feldman
  • 00:07:22
    and Lila Lightman had at that time
  • 00:07:24
    discovered that children born
  • 00:07:25
    congenitally deaf could nevertheless
  • 00:07:27
    construct a gestural language without
  • 00:07:29
    linguistic input and I came into
  • 00:07:31
    graduate school and I said well that's
  • 00:07:33
    fine but those people those those those
  • 00:07:36
    deaf individuals they had the means to
  • 00:07:38
    interpret the world because they could
  • 00:07:39
    see and so I proposed that we should
  • 00:07:42
    study the blind child - as an obvious
  • 00:07:44
    compliment a child who had full
  • 00:07:46
    linguistic input but much reduced
  • 00:07:49
    experience through vision and the study
  • 00:07:52
    took two parts as I mentioned yesterday
  • 00:07:54
    or the day before at the opening
  • 00:07:57
    comments my advisers encouraged me to
  • 00:07:59
    read very broadly and one of the people
  • 00:08:02
    that I read was William James and I
  • 00:08:03
    couldn't help but go back and remember
  • 00:08:06
    and and find the paragraphs that he
  • 00:08:09
    wrote that I found so meaningful when I
  • 00:08:10
    was first thinking about the blind child
  • 00:08:12
    and whether or not they could even
  • 00:08:14
    develop a sense of space and William
  • 00:08:16
    James said the seeing baby's eyes taken
  • 00:08:18
    the whole room at once and
  • 00:08:19
    discrimination must arise in him before
  • 00:08:22
    single objects are visually discerned
  • 00:08:24
    the blind child on the contrary must
  • 00:08:26
    formed his mental image of the room by
  • 00:08:28
    the addition piece to piece of parts
  • 00:08:30
    which he learns to know successively so
  • 00:08:33
    that implies the input is very very
  • 00:08:35
    different for a blind child than a
  • 00:08:36
    sighted child and yet what this Balki
  • 00:08:39
    and Henry Lightman and I found in
  • 00:08:41
    looking at spatial knowledge was that
  • 00:08:43
    the blind child even a two-year-old
  • 00:08:44
    blind child and a cobbler and a sighted
  • 00:08:48
    child as well
  • 00:08:48
    they can both construct the same
  • 00:08:50
    geometric representations of layouts in
  • 00:08:52
    the world despite these vast differences
  • 00:08:54
    in experience the second part to my
  • 00:08:57
    questions at the time
  • 00:08:58
    to do with language in the blind and
  • 00:08:59
    here Lila and I were thinking about well
  • 00:09:01
    what would happen if you didn't have a
  • 00:09:03
    means to interpret the world and of
  • 00:09:05
    course we relied on John Locke who said
  • 00:09:07
    many things about the blind he was a
  • 00:09:09
    very diehard empiricist and the quote
  • 00:09:12
    that best represents his view is I think
  • 00:09:14
    if it will be granted easily that if a
  • 00:09:17
    child were kept in a place where he
  • 00:09:18
    never saw any other but black and white
  • 00:09:20
    till he were a man he would have no more
  • 00:09:22
    ideas of scarlet or green than he that
  • 00:09:25
    from his childhood never tasted an
  • 00:09:27
    oyster or a pineapple has of those
  • 00:09:29
    relishes that is to say if you don't
  • 00:09:31
    have sensory input to feed a lexical
  • 00:09:35
    concept a concept or a word for that
  • 00:09:37
    concept then you will never develop them
  • 00:09:39
    but Lila and I found that the blind
  • 00:09:42
    child actually does learn the meanings
  • 00:09:44
    of words like look and see and color
  • 00:09:46
    terms despite the obvious lack of any
  • 00:09:49
    sensory or perceptual info for these
  • 00:09:51
    particular words and this is this panel
  • 00:09:54
    actually shows a picture of our our main
  • 00:09:58
    participant whose name was Kelly
  • 00:10:00
    responding to our command to look up and
  • 00:10:03
    so Kelly's interpretation over the word
  • 00:10:05
    look was to discover things with your
  • 00:10:07
    hands and so when we said look up to the
  • 00:10:10
    sighted child the sighted child of
  • 00:10:11
    course goes like this even by the way if
  • 00:10:13
    they're blindfolded but if a blind child
  • 00:10:16
    if this blind child is told to look up
  • 00:10:18
    they go like this reaching in order to
  • 00:10:20
    explore whatever is above so Kelly
  • 00:10:23
    definitely the sighted the blind child
  • 00:10:25
    did definitely develop really quite
  • 00:10:28
    detailed representations of those visual
  • 00:10:30
    words so that's my background and that's
  • 00:10:33
    how I came to think about the broader
  • 00:10:34
    question of whether language affects
  • 00:10:36
    thought in particular for Kelly our
  • 00:10:39
    theory was that the way that she learned
  • 00:10:40
    the meanings for these words look and
  • 00:10:42
    see as well as color terms was actually
  • 00:10:44
    through the structure of the language
  • 00:10:46
    itself so I will be saying more about
  • 00:10:48
    the structure of the language itself and
  • 00:10:50
    its power throughout the talk but that
  • 00:10:52
    was our hypothesis at the time and
  • 00:10:55
    that's the question does language affect
  • 00:10:57
    thought in some way that's continued to
  • 00:10:59
    occupy me for the rest of my career
  • 00:11:02
    there's language of that thought and if
  • 00:11:04
    so how so now I want to fast-forward to
  • 00:11:08
    sort of now
  • 00:11:10
    and say what the Hubertus take on the
  • 00:11:13
    language affecting thought hypothesis it
  • 00:11:15
    question is probably everybody in this
  • 00:11:19
    room knows about the Worf ian hypothesis
  • 00:11:21
    the idea is the language that you speak
  • 00:11:23
    the particular language that you speak
  • 00:11:24
    causes you to let's say view the world
  • 00:11:27
    think about the world in a very
  • 00:11:29
    different way if you're like learning
  • 00:11:31
    language a versus B and this was a quote
  • 00:11:33
    that was published in the New York Times
  • 00:11:35
    Magazine section from 2010 it's a part
  • 00:11:38
    of a review of a book by a person named
  • 00:11:40
    guy deutscher who very much endorsed the
  • 00:11:43
    wharf Ian view and I just want to read a
  • 00:11:45
    bit of this to you so that you'll get
  • 00:11:47
    the flavor of the wharf Ian hypothesis
  • 00:11:49
    when your language routinely obliges you
  • 00:11:52
    to specify certain types of information
  • 00:11:53
    it forces you to be attentive to certain
  • 00:11:56
    details in the world and to certain
  • 00:11:58
    aspects of experience that speakers of
  • 00:11:59
    other languages may not be required to
  • 00:12:01
    think about all the time emphasis mine
  • 00:12:04
    and the next and since such habits of
  • 00:12:06
    speech are cultivated from the earliest
  • 00:12:08
    stage it's only natural that they settle
  • 00:12:10
    into habits of mind that go beyond
  • 00:12:12
    language itself affecting your
  • 00:12:14
    experiences your perceptions your
  • 00:12:17
    associations your feelings your memories
  • 00:12:20
    and your orientation in the world notice
  • 00:12:23
    that is a enormous ly strong hypothesis
  • 00:12:25
    that it affects everything you could
  • 00:12:27
    possibly imagine now I want to say that
  • 00:12:30
    this hypothesis has actually led to
  • 00:12:32
    quite strong claims especially in the
  • 00:12:35
    popular literature so I'm going to use
  • 00:12:37
    as an illustration a TED talk that was
  • 00:12:41
    given in 2013 by a behavioral economist
  • 00:12:43
    named Keith Chen from UCLA and Chen's
  • 00:12:46
    thesis was that speaking a language that
  • 00:12:49
    doesn't obligatory that is by necessity
  • 00:12:51
    Marc future tense such as Chinese which
  • 00:12:54
    was his native language strongly
  • 00:12:56
    correlates with higher savings compared
  • 00:12:59
    to speakers of languages that do not
  • 00:13:01
    that do obligatory Li Marc tense as in
  • 00:13:04
    English this is a TED talk widely
  • 00:13:07
    distributed and I think anybody who
  • 00:13:10
    pauses for just a minute can realize
  • 00:13:11
    that that's actually sort of a puzzling
  • 00:13:13
    hypothesis and probably what happened is
  • 00:13:15
    that they discovered what the savings
  • 00:13:17
    rates were and then went back and
  • 00:13:18
    conjectured from what the patterns of
  • 00:13:20
    the language were but that's obviously
  • 00:13:22
    just adjusts
  • 00:13:23
    story and so I want to say to you that
  • 00:13:26
    when you read things on popular
  • 00:13:27
    literature about language affecting
  • 00:13:29
    thought you must be very careful because
  • 00:13:31
    it's not a good thing to be promulgating
  • 00:13:34
    really broad and deep hypotheses on the
  • 00:13:37
    basis of really quite flimsy data or
  • 00:13:39
    questionable data in any case we're
  • 00:13:42
    lucky that most of the psyche the
  • 00:13:43
    psychological science that's done is not
  • 00:13:45
    of this ilk and so now I want to go to
  • 00:13:48
    the two versions of the the of language
  • 00:13:52
    and thought that are normally talked
  • 00:13:54
    about that are sort of part of the
  • 00:13:55
    conversation in the literature the first
  • 00:13:57
    I'm going to call the classic Worf Ian's
  • 00:13:58
    hypothesis and this is the idea that
  • 00:14:00
    language reshapes non linguistic thought
  • 00:14:03
    whatever your non linguistic thought is
  • 00:14:05
    if you have language a versus language
  • 00:14:07
    be it will reshape it and one of the
  • 00:14:09
    examples that I want to give you is
  • 00:14:10
    about color terms which has been a
  • 00:14:12
    testbed for a very long time for the
  • 00:14:14
    Worf Ian hypothesis because languages
  • 00:14:16
    tend to cut up the the space of colors
  • 00:14:19
    in very different ways across different
  • 00:14:21
    languages it's not unconstrained but
  • 00:14:22
    there are differences and so the idea
  • 00:14:24
    here is that learning a particular
  • 00:14:26
    language language a versus language B
  • 00:14:28
    shapes non linguistic categories in
  • 00:14:31
    accord with the native language
  • 00:14:33
    distinction this has been done not only
  • 00:14:36
    in English the study people have used
  • 00:14:38
    English but they've also used a variety
  • 00:14:39
    of other languages to test the
  • 00:14:41
    hypothesis that if you have a
  • 00:14:42
    distinction that you make in one
  • 00:14:45
    language that's a different distinction
  • 00:14:46
    in another language that is across as
  • 00:14:48
    different boundaries you will have
  • 00:14:49
    different perceptual discrimination and
  • 00:14:51
    I'll tell you about this experiment in
  • 00:14:53
    just a second but basically the idea
  • 00:14:55
    here is we have four shades that range
  • 00:14:57
    from sort of pretty much green to pretty
  • 00:14:59
    much blue these two patches these are by
  • 00:15:03
    the way all of equal values physically
  • 00:15:06
    psychologically they're somewhat
  • 00:15:09
    different but in terms of naming they're
  • 00:15:11
    very different so it tends to be the
  • 00:15:13
    case that if you have hues that look
  • 00:15:14
    roughly like this people tend to call
  • 00:15:17
    them green and if you have hues that
  • 00:15:18
    look roughly like this people tend to
  • 00:15:21
    call them blue and so what happens is
  • 00:15:23
    that this is called a between category
  • 00:15:26
    distinction these are the greens and
  • 00:15:28
    these are the blues and this is called a
  • 00:15:30
    within category distinction there are
  • 00:15:32
    two different types of greens or two
  • 00:15:34
    different types of blues and so the idea
  • 00:15:36
    here
  • 00:15:37
    that if your language shapes your
  • 00:15:39
    perceptual discrimination as Gilbert at
  • 00:15:41
    all have hypothesized then what you
  • 00:15:44
    should see is that people who speak a
  • 00:15:45
    language that has greens and blues here
  • 00:15:48
    should show a bigger difference between
  • 00:15:50
    these two shades than people who speak a
  • 00:15:52
    different language now I'm not going to
  • 00:15:53
    tell you about the cross linguistic data
  • 00:15:55
    but I'll just tell you the snippet of
  • 00:15:57
    the English data that will suffice for
  • 00:15:59
    us I want to say though that the
  • 00:16:00
    conclusion of this study by Gilbert at
  • 00:16:03
    all in 2006 was that language may affect
  • 00:16:05
    perceptual discrimination words are
  • 00:16:08
    important here okay it's about
  • 00:16:09
    discrimination it's not about anything
  • 00:16:11
    else it's perceptual discrimination so
  • 00:16:14
    here's the experiment basically that
  • 00:16:16
    they gave people patches of colors in
  • 00:16:21
    which there was one outlier so in this
  • 00:16:23
    case the outlier is the thing that looks
  • 00:16:26
    that's called blue by English speakers
  • 00:16:27
    and the other elements are all in this
  • 00:16:30
    category over here so that's a between
  • 00:16:32
    category distinction and people were
  • 00:16:35
    asked to fixate here and then the panel
  • 00:16:37
    was brought on with all of these colors
  • 00:16:38
    and all they had to do was identify the
  • 00:16:40
    outlier and they're going to ask whether
  • 00:16:42
    or not it's quicker for people to
  • 00:16:44
    identify the outlier if it is represents
  • 00:16:47
    a between linguistic category
  • 00:16:49
    distinction compared to if it's a within
  • 00:16:53
    distinction category and they went a
  • 00:16:55
    little bit farther they said actually
  • 00:16:56
    it's because of the way the brain works
  • 00:16:58
    and so what they did was they actually
  • 00:16:59
    presented to the right visual field in
  • 00:17:01
    which case it projects to the left
  • 00:17:03
    hemisphere or they projected to the left
  • 00:17:05
    hemisphere field in which case of
  • 00:17:07
    projects to the right hemisphere and
  • 00:17:09
    what they found was indeed the between
  • 00:17:12
    categories distinctions were faster than
  • 00:17:14
    the within category as you would expect
  • 00:17:16
    if language had affected something about
  • 00:17:19
    your decision but it was modulated by
  • 00:17:21
    which visual field that was presented in
  • 00:17:23
    and it was the distinction was that
  • 00:17:25
    there was a faster reaction time for
  • 00:17:27
    these between category judgments only in
  • 00:17:30
    the right visual field that is
  • 00:17:31
    projecting the left hemisphere so and in
  • 00:17:34
    addition they presented some data that
  • 00:17:36
    suggested that the pattern was disrupted
  • 00:17:38
    if there was a verbal interference at
  • 00:17:39
    the same time that if you were ready to
  • 00:17:41
    do something with language that effect
  • 00:17:42
    would go away so it seemed to them it
  • 00:17:44
    was a linguistic effect but their
  • 00:17:45
    interpretation was very strong and again
  • 00:17:47
    words matter language may affect
  • 00:17:50
    perceptual disk
  • 00:17:51
    nation okay I think that's gone too far
  • 00:17:53
    I'll say why in just a minute but that's
  • 00:17:58
    an example of version one the particular
  • 00:18:00
    language you speak affects the way that
  • 00:18:03
    you nan your non linguistic
  • 00:18:05
    representations the second version that
  • 00:18:08
    I think is actually more interesting in
  • 00:18:10
    a way is that language having a language
  • 00:18:12
    causes a radical transformation of
  • 00:18:14
    thought and the example I want to give
  • 00:18:16
    here is spatial reorientation and for
  • 00:18:18
    those of you who are not spatial
  • 00:18:20
    reorientation aficionado so I'll go
  • 00:18:21
    through this briefly and try to make it
  • 00:18:25
    clear but it turns out there's there's a
  • 00:18:28
    very interesting phenomenon within the
  • 00:18:30
    literature on spatial reorientation
  • 00:18:31
    really by reorientation we mean if you
  • 00:18:34
    get disoriented in a space and then you
  • 00:18:36
    must reorient yourself what information
  • 00:18:38
    do you use and some of this work
  • 00:18:40
    actually the seminal work was done by
  • 00:18:42
    Randy gal Estelle and Ken Chang back in
  • 00:18:45
    the early 80s in which they found that
  • 00:18:46
    if you put a rat into a chamber that is
  • 00:18:49
    roughly rectangular and you bait it at
  • 00:18:52
    one corner and then you take the rat out
  • 00:18:55
    and disorient the rat and put the rat
  • 00:18:58
    back in in the middle they actually make
  • 00:19:00
    a very peculiar error sometimes they go
  • 00:19:03
    to the baited side the baited corner but
  • 00:19:05
    sometimes they go to the corner that's
  • 00:19:07
    exactly geometrically opposite that
  • 00:19:09
    baited corner and the question is why
  • 00:19:11
    and Chang and gallo still proposed that
  • 00:19:13
    actually they were ignoring all of the
  • 00:19:16
    salient visual cues I mean rats are not
  • 00:19:18
    visual anyway but in you know smell and
  • 00:19:20
    so forth they you were ignoring those
  • 00:19:22
    surface cues in order to focus on what
  • 00:19:25
    we call the geometry of the space so in
  • 00:19:28
    geometric terms this corner with the
  • 00:19:30
    long wall let's say to the left and the
  • 00:19:32
    short wall to the right is actually
  • 00:19:34
    geometrically equivalent in to this
  • 00:19:37
    corner so the rats were essentially
  • 00:19:38
    recording the geometry of the space and
  • 00:19:41
    were essentially ignoring the surface
  • 00:19:43
    cues now Linda Hermer and Liz spelke
  • 00:19:45
    then adopted the method of disorienting
  • 00:19:48
    animals in these chambers and they
  • 00:19:51
    adopted it for young children so they
  • 00:19:53
    took 18 and 24 month olds and they also
  • 00:19:55
    put them in a rectangular chamber like
  • 00:19:57
    this and actually it was sort of
  • 00:19:59
    originally just a black chamber with no
  • 00:20:02
    landmarks at all
  • 00:20:03
    and they showed them a toy that was
  • 00:20:06
    hidden in this corner and then they
  • 00:20:08
    disoriented them close their eyes and
  • 00:20:10
    turned them around and they found that
  • 00:20:12
    18 to 24 month olds and actually just
  • 00:20:16
    about every age that's been tested if
  • 00:20:18
    there are no surface cue so if the what
  • 00:20:20
    if the if the enclosure is all black and
  • 00:20:23
    there are no landmarks at all children
  • 00:20:26
    and adults make the same geometric error
  • 00:20:28
    as rats okay
  • 00:20:30
    the peculiar thing in addition to that
  • 00:20:32
    was the very youngest children really
  • 00:20:34
    seem to act just like rats
  • 00:20:36
    and so they too ignored the surface cues
  • 00:20:39
    they ignored the landmarks and basically
  • 00:20:41
    went with geometry later on these
  • 00:20:44
    children when you get to be you know
  • 00:20:46
    four or five or six years old and
  • 00:20:47
    certainly adults if you have the
  • 00:20:49
    landmarks as well then it seems you
  • 00:20:51
    combine the information and so then you
  • 00:20:53
    get it exactly right and so you can find
  • 00:20:55
    the object in the right corner okay so
  • 00:20:58
    the proposal the reason this is
  • 00:21:00
    important is because they had a proposal
  • 00:21:02
    about why that changes why does the yeah
  • 00:21:04
    what is a young child a toddler act just
  • 00:21:06
    like a rat but a four to six year old
  • 00:21:08
    now acts like an adult that is they can
  • 00:21:10
    combine the geometry with the landmarks
  • 00:21:12
    and their answer was this the
  • 00:21:14
    combinatorial properties of the language
  • 00:21:16
    faculty serve to represent relationships
  • 00:21:19
    the child's nonverbal systems cannot
  • 00:21:21
    capture because of encapsulation of
  • 00:21:23
    those systems that is to say they're
  • 00:21:24
    represented in cept in separate places
  • 00:21:26
    the geometry and the landmarks are
  • 00:21:28
    separate but if you have language and
  • 00:21:30
    you can represent it linguistically then
  • 00:21:32
    that's a huge advantage okay so that's
  • 00:21:35
    their hypothesis that it's language
  • 00:21:37
    itself having a language that is causing
  • 00:21:39
    the difference between the rat and the
  • 00:21:41
    human this hypothesis which I think has
  • 00:21:44
    some real merit has actually been taken
  • 00:21:47
    very seriously in the philosophic Asafa
  • 00:21:50
    chol and linguistic literature those
  • 00:21:52
    bodies people really have admired this
  • 00:21:54
    so the philosopher Carruthers says
  • 00:21:56
    Hermer vasquez it all provides strong
  • 00:21:58
    evidence that the integration of
  • 00:22:00
    geometry with other sorts of information
  • 00:22:02
    depends on natural language okay and
  • 00:22:05
    Berwick and Chomsky recently have asked
  • 00:22:08
    why do humans have language at all
  • 00:22:09
    because language is the lingua franca
  • 00:22:12
    the binds together the different
  • 00:22:14
    representations from geometric
  • 00:22:16
    non-geometric modules just like an inner
  • 00:22:18
    mental tool should so people seem to
  • 00:22:23
    admire this hypothesis in the idea that
  • 00:22:26
    having a language does something
  • 00:22:27
    extraordinary for you these versions
  • 00:22:30
    both version 1 and version 2 are
  • 00:22:32
    interesting but they really have
  • 00:22:33
    critical weaknesses so for example the
  • 00:22:35
    language shapes thought hypothesis
  • 00:22:37
    version 1 it's really unclear what's
  • 00:22:39
    changing was it really a change in
  • 00:22:41
    perceptual discrimination I really doubt
  • 00:22:43
    it could it have been memory it's
  • 00:22:45
    possible it's possible that it's just a
  • 00:22:46
    linguistic effect that is to say you're
  • 00:22:49
    coding it linguistically and therefore
  • 00:22:51
    you're showing the effects of language
  • 00:22:53
    secondly very often what's called a non
  • 00:22:56
    linguistic task in this field actually
  • 00:22:58
    is is permeated with language so it
  • 00:23:02
    actually is a linguistic task and so you
  • 00:23:04
    have to be very careful about that and
  • 00:23:05
    finally the other weakness is that this
  • 00:23:07
    hypothesis requires that you use a
  • 00:23:10
    language habitually and we don't know
  • 00:23:12
    what the length of time is is that over
  • 00:23:14
    the lifetime and then you get to the
  • 00:23:16
    point that your savings changes because
  • 00:23:18
    you have a language that marks the
  • 00:23:21
    future tense unclear the second
  • 00:23:23
    hypothesis the version 2 that radically
  • 00:23:25
    linked language radically transforms
  • 00:23:27
    thought it the strong version of this
  • 00:23:29
    that is necessary language is necessary
  • 00:23:31
    it's already ruled out by evidence from
  • 00:23:33
    animals so animals do combine it's not
  • 00:23:35
    that like they act like the Chang and
  • 00:23:37
    galas tell rats ignoring the surface
  • 00:23:39
    cues at all so we don't need language to
  • 00:23:41
    do this but it's also a problem that the
  • 00:23:43
    mechanism seems completely unspecified
  • 00:23:45
    and I think this is a huge problem in
  • 00:23:47
    the field which I hope to provide part
  • 00:23:49
    of a solution to this morning okay I
  • 00:23:51
    want to move on to the third hypothesis
  • 00:23:53
    that I'm going to propose and I'm going
  • 00:23:55
    to call it the recoating hypothesis in
  • 00:23:58
    the past I've called it at the momentary
  • 00:23:59
    hypothesis for anybody who has an
  • 00:24:01
    inkling here of the past work but we'll
  • 00:24:05
    call it the recoating hypothesis right
  • 00:24:06
    now and I'm going to spell out what I
  • 00:24:08
    mean by this and show you an example of
  • 00:24:10
    how it could work with some experiments
  • 00:24:12
    so the idea here is that language
  • 00:24:14
    provides a rich formalism it's not what
  • 00:24:17
    it means to have a language is to have a
  • 00:24:19
    formalism that really matters when
  • 00:24:21
    you're encoding your experience and that
  • 00:24:24
    itself having that formalism converts a
  • 00:24:26
    huge advantage for cognition
  • 00:24:28
    and the case study I'm going to be
  • 00:24:30
    dealing with is a very simple case of
  • 00:24:33
    binding color and location storing
  • 00:24:35
    colors in their locations these are the
  • 00:24:38
    references the for the the papers in
  • 00:24:40
    which the the empirical data has been
  • 00:24:42
    reported this person bunchy de Celine
  • 00:24:44
    was my graduate student at the time that
  • 00:24:45
    we started this she's done she did most
  • 00:24:47
    of the experimental work with me and so
  • 00:24:50
    let me spell it out the recoding
  • 00:24:54
    hypothesis says language recode x' what
  • 00:24:56
    we see it provides a rich
  • 00:24:57
    representational formalism for recoding
  • 00:25:00
    what we see it includes both semantics
  • 00:25:03
    the meanings of words and it also
  • 00:25:04
    couldn't include syntax the way that we
  • 00:25:06
    combine words the benefit of recoding
  • 00:25:09
    occurs right in the moment of doing the
  • 00:25:13
    task its role changes over development
  • 00:25:15
    and its enormous ly powerful it can lead
  • 00:25:17
    to cognitive enrichment but it does not
  • 00:25:20
    change underlying non linguistic
  • 00:25:21
    representations so it's not effective on
  • 00:25:23
    perceptual discrimination so for some
  • 00:25:26
    background i'm gonna tell you feature
  • 00:25:28
    conjunctions are hard so a lot of people
  • 00:25:31
    are here if you have any background in
  • 00:25:32
    vision you'll recognize these effects
  • 00:25:34
    very quickly visual search in adults
  • 00:25:37
    shows that if you're searching for a
  • 00:25:39
    feature for a color a particular color
  • 00:25:41
    in an array or a particular shape is
  • 00:25:43
    really fast and it's called parallel but
  • 00:25:46
    a conjunction search if you're searching
  • 00:25:48
    for a color and shape it's very slow and
  • 00:25:50
    it tends to be serial you have to look
  • 00:25:52
    one by one it requires attention and
  • 00:25:54
    this was one of the founding research
  • 00:25:57
    findings from Anne Treisman back in 1984
  • 00:26:01
    so I'm gonna give you an example and I
  • 00:26:03
    want a little audience participation
  • 00:26:04
    here I want you to look for the tar this
  • 00:26:07
    target okay in the next display here I
  • 00:26:09
    go
  • 00:26:10
    how many found it everybody found it it
  • 00:26:13
    popped out it was immediate it was
  • 00:26:15
    totally easy now let's do the same
  • 00:26:17
    exercise look for the target the same
  • 00:26:19
    target okay raise your hand when you see
  • 00:26:25
    it and those of you who haven't found it
  • 00:26:26
    yet it's okay you will find it I promise
  • 00:26:29
    you okay but you do need to go serially
  • 00:26:32
    one by one so that just shows you the
  • 00:26:34
    binding of the color and the location or
  • 00:26:36
    the color and the shape is really really
  • 00:26:38
    hard for the visual system to do that's
  • 00:26:40
    think that's a weakness of on the part
  • 00:26:42
    of the visual system in some way the
  • 00:26:44
    general point is that visual search
  • 00:26:46
    conjunction search are hard turns out
  • 00:26:49
    patients with vision disorder disorders
  • 00:26:51
    due to brain damage show deficits in
  • 00:26:53
    this particular kind of search it also
  • 00:26:55
    turns out that memory for color and
  • 00:26:57
    location is really poor in typically
  • 00:26:59
    developing four to six year olds and in
  • 00:27:01
    adolescents with Williams syndrome and I
  • 00:27:03
    have a picture of a child one of our
  • 00:27:05
    earlier participants with Williams
  • 00:27:06
    syndrome be good to remind me this is
  • 00:27:08
    actually how we sort of stumbled on this
  • 00:27:10
    this this method in this particular case
  • 00:27:13
    which turns out to be very important we
  • 00:27:15
    noticed that these children had a
  • 00:27:17
    tremendous difficulty representing the
  • 00:27:19
    color and location of something as
  • 00:27:21
    simple as this stimulus and I'm going to
  • 00:27:23
    show you a lot of data from typically
  • 00:27:24
    developing four-year-olds that show the
  • 00:27:26
    same so we began to think could it be
  • 00:27:28
    possible that this weakness in the
  • 00:27:30
    visual system is aided by language and
  • 00:27:34
    so I'm going to ask three questions
  • 00:27:35
    first of all if there is change is it
  • 00:27:37
    long short or momentary what's the
  • 00:27:41
    nature of the linguistic representation
  • 00:27:43
    that affects the change and how powerful
  • 00:27:46
    is it relative to other mechanisms and
  • 00:27:48
    these are going to be my answers it's
  • 00:27:50
    momentary it involves lexical that is
  • 00:27:52
    the word meanings plus the syntax it's
  • 00:27:55
    very abstract and it's very powerful so
  • 00:27:58
    here I'm going to show you the basic
  • 00:27:59
    task and this is all gonna be with
  • 00:28:00
    four-year-olds unless I so say it say
  • 00:28:02
    something unless I tell you otherwise
  • 00:28:03
    and here's the task you show a
  • 00:28:06
    four-year-old child this thing and you
  • 00:28:07
    say look at this and then they can look
  • 00:28:10
    at it as long as they want and then it
  • 00:28:12
    goes off for one second one second and
  • 00:28:14
    then three options come on and we say
  • 00:28:17
    which one is exactly the same as the one
  • 00:28:19
    you just saw so probably everybody knows
  • 00:28:22
    which one but if you're confused
  • 00:28:23
    do not worry it's very common so I
  • 00:28:26
    actually can't remember which one was in
  • 00:28:28
    the first panel but the typical errors
  • 00:28:30
    are between these two because of the
  • 00:28:32
    color location one is a reflection of
  • 00:28:33
    the other so in the task we had three
  • 00:28:37
    different target types we had a vertical
  • 00:28:38
    split a horizontal split and a diagonal
  • 00:28:40
    split and for each one of these
  • 00:28:43
    different target types for each trial
  • 00:28:45
    the structure of the trials were just
  • 00:28:48
    like I showed you and just sort of more
  • 00:28:49
    abstractly if I see if they saw a
  • 00:28:51
    vertical split they would get the same
  • 00:28:52
    one
  • 00:28:53
    and it's reflection and then they would
  • 00:28:56
    get one of the other splits so either
  • 00:28:57
    they would get a horizontal split or
  • 00:28:59
    they would get a diagonal split so
  • 00:29:00
    always three options when after the
  • 00:29:03
    after the target goes off I want to make
  • 00:29:06
    a point that our native object
  • 00:29:08
    recognition system actually considers
  • 00:29:10
    these things reflections to be
  • 00:29:11
    equivalent so for us purposes of object
  • 00:29:14
    recognition pretty much the visual
  • 00:29:15
    system ignores this reflection so it
  • 00:29:18
    makes sense for us to have problems
  • 00:29:20
    identifying a target and its reflection
  • 00:29:22
    we only need these the reflections and
  • 00:29:25
    the distinctions we do them to
  • 00:29:26
    distinguish for exerting letters and
  • 00:29:28
    numbers so when you learn P's and B's
  • 00:29:30
    there's a P and there's a and the B's
  • 00:29:32
    and their DS those are different
  • 00:29:34
    geometric transformations of each other
  • 00:29:36
    and for those we need to mark the
  • 00:29:38
    differences among across there the the
  • 00:29:40
    items so here's the first experiment
  • 00:29:43
    again four-year-old children when we
  • 00:29:45
    started out we thought to ourselves
  • 00:29:46
    let's just do a very very simple
  • 00:29:48
    manipulation with language so the
  • 00:29:52
    experiment is you show them this thing
  • 00:29:54
    and either you do the know label you say
  • 00:29:56
    look at this and then goes off for a
  • 00:29:59
    second and then which one is exactly the
  • 00:30:01
    same as you just saw or we try to novel
  • 00:30:03
    label because there's an abundant
  • 00:30:05
    literature including some that I've been
  • 00:30:06
    involved in that shows that if you have
  • 00:30:08
    a label associated with an object it
  • 00:30:10
    tends to draw attention to the object at
  • 00:30:12
    least that's the claim so we thought
  • 00:30:13
    let's just label it so then we said in
  • 00:30:15
    another condition completely different
  • 00:30:17
    set of subjects look at this this is a
  • 00:30:19
    Dax and then which one is exactly the
  • 00:30:21
    same as you just saw and the results
  • 00:30:24
    were these remember that random chance
  • 00:30:27
    probability performance is 33% so
  • 00:30:30
    everybody is above 33% these are the
  • 00:30:32
    corrects are about 66% and 62% there's
  • 00:30:35
    no difference between the label and a no
  • 00:30:36
    label condition they're right around 60
  • 00:30:39
    and what's interest interesting is the
  • 00:30:41
    errors so the errors are primarily the
  • 00:30:43
    reflections just as we predicted so
  • 00:30:45
    they're the children are not hardly ever
  • 00:30:48
    picking the other split if they have a
  • 00:30:50
    horizontal split they're not picking a
  • 00:30:51
    vertical split they're picking the right
  • 00:30:53
    split but they're mixing up what the
  • 00:30:55
    assignment of color to location is so
  • 00:30:57
    this is what the first experiment showed
  • 00:31:00
    us and my graphic for representing what
  • 00:31:02
    the child must be representing is
  • 00:31:04
    something like this they're representing
  • 00:31:06
    the gene
  • 00:31:06
    split but they're not sure which side
  • 00:31:08
    the red and the green go on okay so it's
  • 00:31:11
    there's no assignment of color to the
  • 00:31:12
    locations then we thought okay let's
  • 00:31:15
    just go whole hog here let's just say
  • 00:31:17
    look at this the red is on the left or
  • 00:31:20
    of course for other stimuli if the rig
  • 00:31:22
    was on the right we said on the right
  • 00:31:23
    top and bottom and so forth
  • 00:31:24
    goes off so look at this the red is on
  • 00:31:27
    the Left goes off for a second and the
  • 00:31:30
    items come on which one is exactly the
  • 00:31:32
    same as you just saw and here what we
  • 00:31:34
    find is performance goes up to 80% from
  • 00:31:36
    60% so it's a huge bump up these are
  • 00:31:39
    again four-year-old children we get the
  • 00:31:41
    same error patterns and this will be
  • 00:31:43
    persistent throughout all of the
  • 00:31:44
    experiments I tell you about and so my
  • 00:31:47
    graphic for representing what the child
  • 00:31:49
    knows is that now they're actually doing
  • 00:31:51
    much better they represent not only the
  • 00:31:52
    split but the color location assignments
  • 00:31:55
    now we begin to think well okay we have
  • 00:31:58
    to begin thinking about this what is
  • 00:31:59
    language doing here we told them left
  • 00:32:01
    and right
  • 00:32:01
    so we say look at this let's see where
  • 00:32:04
    the red is and then we flashed the whole
  • 00:32:06
    or just the red part and so just to give
  • 00:32:09
    you an example of a flashing one we show
  • 00:32:11
    them look at this look where the rate is
  • 00:32:14
    and then show me the one that's exactly
  • 00:32:17
    the same and we did that with the whole
  • 00:32:19
    as well we did flashing with the halt in
  • 00:32:21
    the experiment three shows back down to
  • 00:32:23
    60% so that the salience method doesn't
  • 00:32:26
    do the trick at all and the
  • 00:32:28
    representation is still a vertical split
  • 00:32:30
    with nothing else follow-ups growing and
  • 00:32:33
    pointing so our vision science
  • 00:32:35
    colleagues said to us don't make it
  • 00:32:37
    flash on and off make it grow because
  • 00:32:39
    flashing on and off is like it's absent
  • 00:32:40
    so we said fine we'll make it grow so we
  • 00:32:42
    made it grow in one experiment I'll show
  • 00:32:44
    you what it looks like we also had
  • 00:32:46
    children in a separate experiment point
  • 00:32:47
    because we're good developmental
  • 00:32:49
    psychologists and we thought surely
  • 00:32:50
    pointing to the red will work so here's
  • 00:32:53
    what it looks like to grow the red side
  • 00:32:56
    look at this look at the red and then
  • 00:33:00
    which one is exactly the same as you've
  • 00:33:03
    just seen and here's what happens all at
  • 00:33:06
    the same so this is flashing this is
  • 00:33:08
    growing and this is pointing that is to
  • 00:33:10
    say we're back down at 60% those have
  • 00:33:13
    absolutely no effect okay
  • 00:33:15
    so now we think okay we said left maybe
  • 00:33:18
    we should just give any kind
  • 00:33:19
    spatial term let's try the red is
  • 00:33:21
    touching the green and we used connected
  • 00:33:23
    to in adjacent to which one is exactly
  • 00:33:26
    the same as you sis just saw and the
  • 00:33:28
    representation is again no better than
  • 00:33:31
    we saw before it doesn't assign color
  • 00:33:33
    location and here are the first four
  • 00:33:34
    experiments that I just told you about
  • 00:33:36
    hole or no label is 60% top bottom right
  • 00:33:40
    and left is around 80 percent flashing
  • 00:33:42
    pointing growing around 60% and touching
  • 00:33:44
    which is neutral back down to 60% so the
  • 00:33:47
    only thing that works is the red is the
  • 00:33:49
    left of the green nothing else works
  • 00:33:51
    nothing else that any vision scientists
  • 00:33:53
    are developmentalist would have
  • 00:33:54
    predicted so what is going on
  • 00:33:56
    what does language do I'm going to start
  • 00:33:58
    by trying to convince you that these are
  • 00:34:00
    changes that occur right in the moment
  • 00:34:02
    of the task for the child so what we did
  • 00:34:04
    after the left in the left/right
  • 00:34:07
    experiment was we also did a post task
  • 00:34:10
    and so after the child was done with the
  • 00:34:13
    experiment we ran a production study and
  • 00:34:14
    a comprehension study to see whether or
  • 00:34:16
    not children who knew the meanings of
  • 00:34:19
    left and right that is this is on my
  • 00:34:20
    left and this is on my right did better
  • 00:34:22
    because they had a long-term
  • 00:34:24
    representation of that term which was
  • 00:34:26
    brought to bear on the task then
  • 00:34:28
    children who didn't know it so in the
  • 00:34:30
    production task we had a smiley face we
  • 00:34:32
    presented at one of four locations and
  • 00:34:34
    we said where's the smiley face it is
  • 00:34:35
    and then they say they give a spatial
  • 00:34:38
    term in the comprehension task we said
  • 00:34:41
    see this edge they see the square draw
  • 00:34:44
    an X on the left right top bottom of the
  • 00:34:47
    square and so that's a comprehension to
  • 00:34:48
    ask and they placed an X wherever they
  • 00:34:50
    thought here are the results which
  • 00:34:52
    aren't too surprising top and bottom for
  • 00:34:55
    four-year-olds at ceiling they know
  • 00:34:57
    they're tops and bottoms but they do not
  • 00:34:58
    know they're left's and rights okay and
  • 00:35:00
    it varies it varies enormous ly which is
  • 00:35:02
    a good thing for us because there are
  • 00:35:03
    some kids who just don't know left-right
  • 00:35:05
    at all and there's some kids who are all
  • 00:35:07
    the way up at ceiling at 80% for these
  • 00:35:09
    things I have to say that even the kids
  • 00:35:11
    who don't know left and right do know
  • 00:35:13
    that it's along the heart somewhere
  • 00:35:14
    along the horizontal axis but it's
  • 00:35:16
    usually randomly placed it's either on
  • 00:35:18
    the right or on the left depending on
  • 00:35:19
    what term you're using but it's clearly
  • 00:35:21
    not correct so the hypothetical here is
  • 00:35:24
    that if you know your left and right if
  • 00:35:26
    you have a long term representation of
  • 00:35:28
    these things and you just bring it to
  • 00:35:29
    bear in in the task then
  • 00:35:32
    kids who do better on left-right should
  • 00:35:34
    also do better in the matching task that
  • 00:35:36
    turns out not to be true this is the
  • 00:35:39
    matching task accuracy over left and
  • 00:35:41
    right production accuracy so what you
  • 00:35:43
    can see is that the four-year-olds some
  • 00:35:44
    of whom are getting 0% correct and some
  • 00:35:47
    of whom are getting 100% correct are all
  • 00:35:50
    matching at about 80 percent so it
  • 00:35:52
    doesn't matter whether you have the
  • 00:35:54
    ability to produce these terms
  • 00:35:55
    accurately in the post-test it also
  • 00:35:58
    doesn't matter if you understand them in
  • 00:36:00
    the post tasks so again we've got this
  • 00:36:02
    no correlation at all between the extent
  • 00:36:05
    to which you know your left's and rights
  • 00:36:06
    and your performance in the matching
  • 00:36:08
    tasks okay so that what this means to us
  • 00:36:12
    is that they don't actually have a
  • 00:36:15
    long-term representation of these terms
  • 00:36:16
    that are they're bringing to bear but
  • 00:36:18
    they're able to use it right in the
  • 00:36:20
    moment when we say to them the red is to
  • 00:36:22
    the left of green they're probably
  • 00:36:24
    coding it somehow as so that's that's
  • 00:36:27
    the one the red is the one that's called
  • 00:36:29
    left at that moment but I'll say more
  • 00:36:31
    about what the format must be so now
  • 00:36:34
    what's the nature of the linguistic
  • 00:36:36
    representation suppose syntactic and
  • 00:36:38
    lexical and so red is left over Ian
  • 00:36:41
    works but red is touching green does not
  • 00:36:43
    work so to explain this difference I'm
  • 00:36:46
    going to argue you need both the
  • 00:36:47
    syntactic frame X is left of Y and you
  • 00:36:51
    need the value the lexical item the
  • 00:36:53
    directional value of left so let's start
  • 00:36:56
    with the syntactic frame this specifies
  • 00:36:59
    figure-ground roles and thereby alters
  • 00:37:02
    the prominence of the two entities it
  • 00:37:04
    tells you which is the figure in which
  • 00:37:06
    is the reference object so if I say red
  • 00:37:08
    is left of green that means the green is
  • 00:37:10
    the ground object and X and and red is
  • 00:37:13
    the figure in the figure object place
  • 00:37:15
    this is actually a widely noted and and
  • 00:37:21
    understand and fairly well understood
  • 00:37:22
    phenomenon lilah Lightman has done a lot
  • 00:37:25
    of work the linguist Lynne talmy has
  • 00:37:27
    done a lot of work the psychologist Amos
  • 00:37:31
    Tversky actually used this in some early
  • 00:37:33
    work on similarity and eleanor rosch has
  • 00:37:35
    has also done work on this and here are
  • 00:37:38
    some examples that we can give so
  • 00:37:40
    there's a difference between saying
  • 00:37:42
    North Korea is similar to China
  • 00:37:44
    and China is similar to North Korea one
  • 00:37:46
    is preferred to the other one sounds
  • 00:37:48
    more natural to the other and that's
  • 00:37:50
    because North Korea is similar to China
  • 00:37:52
    sounds more natural because China is the
  • 00:37:54
    natural at least at this moment China is
  • 00:37:56
    the natural ground or reference object
  • 00:37:58
    in North Korea is compared to it in some
  • 00:38:01
    respects the example from Lin tell me is
  • 00:38:05
    Clark Kent is Superman is better than
  • 00:38:08
    Superman is Clark Kent why because
  • 00:38:11
    Superman is the thing being compared to
  • 00:38:13
    and Clark Kent is the figure object
  • 00:38:16
    being compared to Superman and then
  • 00:38:19
    finally the glytamins did this great
  • 00:38:20
    experiment where they gave people
  • 00:38:22
    nonsense sentences like the zoom met the
  • 00:38:25
    DAX
  • 00:38:26
    if they meets B then B meets a as well
  • 00:38:28
    but they asked people later to rate the
  • 00:38:31
    properties of the zoom and the DAX
  • 00:38:32
    nonsense things and they found out that
  • 00:38:34
    the DAX was old evaluated as older
  • 00:38:37
    bigger more famous and more important
  • 00:38:39
    okay so the effects of the syntactic
  • 00:38:42
    asymmetry what's in figure and what's in
  • 00:38:44
    grand show ZUP in commonplace usage and
  • 00:38:46
    I hope there are fans of Saturday Night
  • 00:38:47
    Live here because we'll have a few
  • 00:38:49
    pieces of data from them the first
  • 00:38:52
    example has to do with Alec Baldwin and
  • 00:38:55
    our president and so as you know Alec
  • 00:38:59
    Baldwin has been playing the role of the
  • 00:39:01
    president on Saturday Night Live and
  • 00:39:03
    this gave me the opportunity to do a
  • 00:39:05
    google search on Alec Baldwin looks like
  • 00:39:08
    Donald Trump versus Donald Trump looks
  • 00:39:11
    like Alec Baldwin okay so in principle
  • 00:39:14
    if Donald Trump is the comparator that
  • 00:39:17
    Alec Baldwin is being compared to you
  • 00:39:19
    should have a larger number of hits it's
  • 00:39:21
    just like the zoom method acts with the
  • 00:39:24
    tax being the the older and more
  • 00:39:26
    important so indeed there are more
  • 00:39:28
    instances of Alec Baldwin looks like
  • 00:39:30
    Donald Trump 700,000 compared to 497 of
  • 00:39:34
    the other variety because this is
  • 00:39:36
    psychological the Association for
  • 00:39:38
    psychological science of course it's a
  • 00:39:40
    replication so it was a replication of
  • 00:39:42
    an earlier finding it also showed up in
  • 00:39:45
    2016 so I had done a search at the time
  • 00:39:47
    on Larry David looks like Bernie Sanders
  • 00:39:50
    and it turns out the hit is 22 million
  • 00:39:52
    whereas Bernie Sanders looks like Larry
  • 00:39:54
    David is only 5 million so again you get
  • 00:39:56
    this here
  • 00:39:57
    a symmetry in the way that the thing is
  • 00:39:59
    framed and finally the original finding
  • 00:40:01
    is with of course Tina Fey and Sarah
  • 00:40:03
    Palin Tina Fey looks like Sarah Palin
  • 00:40:05
    two million hits Sarah Palin looks like
  • 00:40:08
    Tina Fey only two hundred and eighty
  • 00:40:10
    eight thousand okay so it's a big
  • 00:40:12
    phenomenon it's also true in addition to
  • 00:40:15
    the frame that the lexical content
  • 00:40:16
    matters so this sets up using left sets
  • 00:40:20
    of a very strong non-reversible property
  • 00:40:23
    so if the X is left of Y then Y is not
  • 00:40:27
    left of X and so so it's impossible to
  • 00:40:29
    if X is left of Y then Y can't be left
  • 00:40:33
    of X it has to be not left of X so it's
  • 00:40:35
    kiley asymmetrical so combining the
  • 00:40:38
    frame idea with the lexical content we
  • 00:40:41
    have come to a very counterintuitive
  • 00:40:42
    prediction which was actually it was a
  • 00:40:44
    great challenge because a linguist in
  • 00:40:47
    our department suggested that this would
  • 00:40:48
    be a prediction if we really believed it
  • 00:40:50
    was frames plus the lexical value of an
  • 00:40:52
    asymmetric term if this non
  • 00:40:55
    reversibility the directionality of that
  • 00:40:57
    item matters then if we say to the kids
  • 00:40:59
    red is prettier than green that should
  • 00:41:02
    work too so we bit the bullet and we did
  • 00:41:05
    the experiment in an experiment five we
  • 00:41:07
    had three conditions one was a no label
  • 00:41:09
    condition the second was the directional
  • 00:41:11
    the Reds on the left right top bottom
  • 00:41:13
    and the third was the red is prettier
  • 00:41:15
    nicer lighter than the green which one
  • 00:41:18
    is exactly the same as the one you just
  • 00:41:19
    saw three different groups of subjects
  • 00:41:21
    and here's what happens no label is
  • 00:41:24
    still in the 60s directional is again in
  • 00:41:26
    the around eighty and prettier is right
  • 00:41:29
    up there with directional left and right
  • 00:41:31
    and so this asymmetrical concept
  • 00:41:34
    prettier actually works for
  • 00:41:36
    four-year-olds to carry over the binding
  • 00:41:38
    of the color location in this very very
  • 00:41:40
    local context we also did difference
  • 00:41:43
    that everything has been a one-second
  • 00:41:45
    delay we did a four second delay it
  • 00:41:47
    turns out the directional terms the
  • 00:41:48
    left's and rights really have a
  • 00:41:49
    persisting value whereas the prettier
  • 00:41:52
    terms decline a little bit but I think
  • 00:41:55
    that's just a detail I want to say
  • 00:41:57
    importantly there's also a developmental
  • 00:41:59
    story to this this line of experiments
  • 00:42:02
    we did the work with three-year-olds
  • 00:42:04
    they can't take advantage of left or
  • 00:42:06
    prettier so we did the no label
  • 00:42:08
    condition the directional condition
  • 00:42:10
    prettier condition these are not
  • 00:42:11
    reliably different from each other
  • 00:42:13
    they're a little bit lower than the than
  • 00:42:15
    the four-year-olds they're at fifty
  • 00:42:17
    percent to fifty five instead of sixty
  • 00:42:18
    percent but there's no effect of the
  • 00:42:20
    linguistic context six-year-olds need
  • 00:42:23
    not take advantage of left and prettier
  • 00:42:26
    actually interferes so six-year-olds
  • 00:42:28
    actually are getting way up high whether
  • 00:42:30
    they have a label or not or or given a
  • 00:42:33
    directional information and so we think
  • 00:42:35
    that what they're doing is basically
  • 00:42:36
    automatically labeling not consciously
  • 00:42:38
    we're not talking about a conscious
  • 00:42:40
    process here but it's an automatic
  • 00:42:41
    labeling and adults can't help but take
  • 00:42:44
    advantage so we did the obligatory task
  • 00:42:49
    the same task with a secondary shadowing
  • 00:42:51
    task in which you have to be talking and
  • 00:42:53
    making horrible decisions along as
  • 00:42:55
    you're doing the task it's actually
  • 00:42:56
    incredibly hard to do this if you're a
  • 00:42:58
    participant so we have no shadow
  • 00:43:00
    condition and then there are verbal
  • 00:43:02
    shadow conditions where you have to
  • 00:43:03
    repeat after you're hearing these terms
  • 00:43:06
    in your earpiece and you'll have to
  • 00:43:07
    repeat as you hear them left right top
  • 00:43:09
    bottom north east south west and so
  • 00:43:11
    forth so you're giving yourself spatial
  • 00:43:13
    terms then we had non spatial terms so
  • 00:43:16
    note meant finished small good you're
  • 00:43:19
    hearing these in your earbud and you
  • 00:43:20
    have to repeat them as you're doing the
  • 00:43:21
    task and then a rhythm shadow where
  • 00:43:23
    you're just shadowing or tapping the
  • 00:43:26
    rhythm that you hear and here's what
  • 00:43:28
    happens the no shadow condition is way
  • 00:43:31
    up at ceiling that's because I think the
  • 00:43:33
    adults are just doing it obligatory and
  • 00:43:35
    automatically rhythm shadow is also way
  • 00:43:38
    up there which means that the verbal
  • 00:43:39
    it's not a verbal interference but the
  • 00:43:41
    verbal shadowing conditions both do
  • 00:43:43
    interfere with the with the performance
  • 00:43:47
    okay so what does language do I'm gonna
  • 00:43:51
    say it's a momentary change it's right
  • 00:43:52
    in the context of the experiment because
  • 00:43:54
    those kids just don't know their left's
  • 00:43:56
    and rights at the end after the task the
  • 00:44:00
    linguistic information is syntactic the
  • 00:44:02
    frame matters its lexical the term
  • 00:44:04
    matters and it's very very abstract
  • 00:44:06
    because prettier also works and how
  • 00:44:09
    powerful is it it's very powerful is
  • 00:44:11
    what I'm going to say and I'm going to
  • 00:44:13
    have a read a quote from George Miller
  • 00:44:15
    in 1956 when he was talking about verbal
  • 00:44:19
    recoding in a different context in the
  • 00:44:21
    context that had to do with
  • 00:44:22
    memory functions and chunking items into
  • 00:44:25
    units but he said if you think of this
  • 00:44:27
    verbal recoding merely as a mnemonic
  • 00:44:30
    trick for extending the memory span you
  • 00:44:33
    will miss the more important point
  • 00:44:34
    that's implicit in nearly all such a
  • 00:44:36
    mnemonic devices the point is that
  • 00:44:38
    recoding is an extremely powerful weapon
  • 00:44:41
    for increasing the amount of information
  • 00:44:43
    in this case I think it's the type of
  • 00:44:45
    information that we can deal with in one
  • 00:44:47
    form or another where recoding
  • 00:44:49
    constantly in our daily behavior so does
  • 00:44:52
    language change thought and if so how
  • 00:44:55
    well I said there are two two views ones
  • 00:44:59
    definitely ones not definitely
  • 00:45:00
    definitely not my view is in the middle
  • 00:45:03
    I'm going to say that language can
  • 00:45:05
    recode it does very frequently by this
  • 00:45:07
    powerful formalism it's not just a
  • 00:45:10
    single word its syntax as well it'd be
  • 00:45:12
    effects are momentary it becomes
  • 00:45:15
    automatic more automatic throughout
  • 00:45:18
    development and it confers an advantage
  • 00:45:20
    for cognition more generally so the
  • 00:45:23
    point I want to make here is that this
  • 00:45:25
    is sort of following DeHaan and cones
  • 00:45:27
    neural recycling hypothesis which is
  • 00:45:30
    that you start out with one kind of a
  • 00:45:31
    visual system a visual system that
  • 00:45:33
    actually doesn't care about reflections
  • 00:45:34
    so this is the same Cup whether it's
  • 00:45:37
    facing right words or left words we
  • 00:45:39
    don't care about the directional facing
  • 00:45:41
    for a visual image of an object but we
  • 00:45:44
    do have to come to the point where we do
  • 00:45:46
    care about it when we do for example the
  • 00:45:48
    learning of letters so we have to be
  • 00:45:50
    able to distinguish peas from B's from
  • 00:45:51
    DS so although the object system isn't
  • 00:45:54
    prepared to encode these differences
  • 00:45:57
    among the reflections once you get
  • 00:45:59
    language in there it can mark those
  • 00:46:01
    representations and distinguish them
  • 00:46:03
    however importantly this does not change
  • 00:46:07
    the non linguistic representation so I
  • 00:46:08
    want to remind you that US adults who
  • 00:46:11
    have full fledged language and use it
  • 00:46:12
    all the time and so forth when I gave
  • 00:46:14
    you the search tasks you acted like
  • 00:46:15
    everybody else acts if it's a single
  • 00:46:18
    feature it's a pop-out if it's a
  • 00:46:20
    combined feature it's hard and it takes
  • 00:46:22
    time so that's where language comes in
  • 00:46:24
    and can amplify I'm gonna just note that
  • 00:46:27
    momentary effects of language are
  • 00:46:29
    ubiquitous I'm actually not going to go
  • 00:46:30
    through these because I think due to
  • 00:46:32
    time but there are many many cases in
  • 00:46:35
    field where things that are that are
  • 00:46:37
    reported as massive effects of language
  • 00:46:39
    on thought actually are momentary
  • 00:46:42
    effects this goes for the color
  • 00:46:43
    literature the space literature and many
  • 00:46:45
    others and I'm going to return to the
  • 00:46:47
    original hypotheses version one two so
  • 00:46:50
    the classic war fee and hypothesis does
  • 00:46:53
    language reshape non linguistic thought
  • 00:46:55
    my answer is no it does not all effects
  • 00:46:59
    are momentary it confers a huge
  • 00:47:01
    advantage but the effects are momentary
  • 00:47:03
    the non linguistic categories are just
  • 00:47:05
    left intact this is true for color
  • 00:47:07
    history for the domain of space and it's
  • 00:47:09
    true for a category of linguistic
  • 00:47:11
    markings called evidential z' the degree
  • 00:47:13
    the degree to which you know the source
  • 00:47:15
    of your information and i want to just
  • 00:47:17
    comment for those of you who are
  • 00:47:18
    interested in this literature you should
  • 00:47:20
    go back and read k and Kempton from 1984
  • 00:47:22
    because they actually say exactly the
  • 00:47:25
    same thing not in these terms but they
  • 00:47:26
    do not claim that there are changes in
  • 00:47:28
    perceptual discrimination quite the
  • 00:47:30
    contrary they show that it's not a
  • 00:47:32
    change in perceptual discrimination and
  • 00:47:34
    I think this has gotten lost in the mix
  • 00:47:37
    so version 2 radical transformation does
  • 00:47:40
    language radically transform thought I
  • 00:47:42
    think in a way yes it records the via
  • 00:47:46
    this formalism that's advantageous to
  • 00:47:48
    cognition it allows you to mark things
  • 00:47:50
    that you wouldn't be able to in your non
  • 00:47:52
    linguistic system therefore having a
  • 00:47:54
    language does radically transform
  • 00:47:56
    cognition and the syntactic frame is one
  • 00:47:58
    of the examples that helps us to change
  • 00:48:01
    and create new representations there are
  • 00:48:04
    many other ways in which syntactic
  • 00:48:05
    frames have their effect I'll give you
  • 00:48:07
    some examples so in source goal
  • 00:48:09
    assignment if something is moving from A
  • 00:48:11
    to B it's both true that they moved from
  • 00:48:13
    A to B and visually you're not able to
  • 00:48:16
    distinguish between what it is that
  • 00:48:18
    you're focusing on but language provides
  • 00:48:20
    you a way of focusing on whether you're
  • 00:48:22
    focusing on the goal or the source
  • 00:48:24
    learning the meanings of novel verbs the
  • 00:48:27
    difference between Jane blick the baby a
  • 00:48:29
    novel a novel verb and Jane blick even
  • 00:48:32
    toddlers can actually use the syntactic
  • 00:48:35
    frame to decide whether or not it's a
  • 00:48:37
    causal event or a non-causal event Jane
  • 00:48:40
    doing something to the baby or Jane just
  • 00:48:42
    doing something on her own political
  • 00:48:45
    persuasion the way that we frame these
  • 00:48:48
    things
  • 00:48:48
    North Korea is similar to China versus
  • 00:48:50
    China is similar to North Korea huge
  • 00:48:52
    differences in the framing now as Lila
  • 00:48:55
    Gladman has pointed out many times this
  • 00:48:57
    is not about the the idea of similarity
  • 00:48:59
    which is what Tversky
  • 00:49:01
    thought that it was it's about the
  • 00:49:04
    language and the information that is
  • 00:49:06
    carried by the language frame these are
  • 00:49:08
    different ideas legal responsibility the
  • 00:49:12
    bus collided with the bus collided with
  • 00:49:14
    the bike versus the bus and the bike
  • 00:49:16
    collided so if the bus collided with the
  • 00:49:19
    bike it's probably going to be the buses
  • 00:49:21
    company the pay's but if it's the bus
  • 00:49:23
    and the bike collided it's probably
  • 00:49:26
    going to be no-fault so you're able to
  • 00:49:28
    derive different kinds of inferences
  • 00:49:30
    from using these two different frames
  • 00:49:31
    and a recent observation from chestnut
  • 00:49:34
    and Markman that I think is quite
  • 00:49:35
    profound gender biases so how many times
  • 00:49:38
    do we say girls are as good at math as
  • 00:49:40
    boys that's putting boys in the
  • 00:49:42
    reference position and girls in the
  • 00:49:45
    figure the girls are being compared to
  • 00:49:46
    the boys and that immediately say it
  • 00:49:49
    sets up an asymmetry my final word is
  • 00:49:52
    this
  • 00:49:53
    the structural properties of language
  • 00:49:55
    have been shown to be crucial for the
  • 00:49:57
    case of the blind child who learns the
  • 00:49:59
    meanings of look and see the structural
  • 00:50:04
    properties of language are also crucial
  • 00:50:05
    for the case of the sighted child who's
  • 00:50:07
    rich perceptual systems have surprising
  • 00:50:10
    limits with respect to products of the
  • 00:50:12
    mind and I just gave you the example of
  • 00:50:14
    the figure-ground case the red and the
  • 00:50:16
    green case but they're also some really
  • 00:50:18
    interesting cases out there in the
  • 00:50:20
    literature one is on number from spy pen
  • 00:50:22
    goldin-meadow
  • 00:50:23
    carry and spell key and others that
  • 00:50:25
    shows that home signers that grew out on
  • 00:50:27
    home signers who do not have have full
  • 00:50:29
    fledged
  • 00:50:29
    numerical system in their sign system
  • 00:50:32
    actually performed differently on number
  • 00:50:35
    number tasks in which they're shown to
  • 00:50:38
    do more estimation and less precise
  • 00:50:40
    numerical judgments and finally the idea
  • 00:50:43
    of theory of mind there's a group jill
  • 00:50:45
    de villiers and others that have argued
  • 00:50:47
    that learning about other people's minds
  • 00:50:50
    is actually deeply entwined with the way
  • 00:50:52
    that we express it in language and
  • 00:50:54
    especially for those of you who know
  • 00:50:56
    about language our linguist or psycho
  • 00:50:58
    linguist in the in the audience it's a
  • 00:51:01
    the compliment structure that mental
  • 00:51:03
    verbs take compliment structures that
  • 00:51:05
    specify that you're talking about the
  • 00:51:07
    contents of mind rather than anything
  • 00:51:08
    out there and so the same lesson applies
  • 00:51:14
    to the blind child and to the sighted
  • 00:51:15
    child and I just want to give a nod to
  • 00:51:17
    the Future these are ongoing studies in
  • 00:51:19
    my lab I just said that the structure of
  • 00:51:22
    the language is crucial for the case of
  • 00:51:24
    the sighted child who's rich perceptual
  • 00:51:26
    systems have surprising limits with
  • 00:51:28
    respect to products of mine and the
  • 00:51:30
    really fascinating set of studies that
  • 00:51:32
    are now ongoing in the lab have to do
  • 00:51:34
    with sighted children's understanding
  • 00:51:37
    about what the verb si means it's
  • 00:51:40
    remarkably limited relative to what you
  • 00:51:43
    think because all of these children see
  • 00:51:45
    however there are very very different
  • 00:51:47
    judgments by young children about
  • 00:51:49
    whether or not a blind person can see
  • 00:51:52
    when do you use the word see turns out
  • 00:51:54
    that blind adults are perfectly happy
  • 00:51:57
    with using the verb see for their own
  • 00:51:59
    activities but children are much
  • 00:52:02
    narrower in their interpretation and
  • 00:52:04
    finally the syntax plays a huge role so
  • 00:52:06
    we're studying when young children
  • 00:52:09
    understand when people see that
  • 00:52:12
    something so the example I'll give you
  • 00:52:14
    is the dog runs there's somebody's
  • 00:52:17
    baking cookies they go out of the room a
  • 00:52:19
    dog comes in and eats up all the cookies
  • 00:52:21
    the person comes back in and says oh my
  • 00:52:23
    god you're eating the cookies and the
  • 00:52:25
    dog runs away leaving crumbs on the
  • 00:52:27
    floor two different questions did the
  • 00:52:30
    girl see the dog eating the cookies yes
  • 00:52:33
    if she was present did the girl see that
  • 00:52:37
    the dog ate cookies you can actually
  • 00:52:39
    infer that the answer could be yes if
  • 00:52:41
    you only saw promise on the floor but
  • 00:52:44
    this is a developmental accomplishment
  • 00:52:46
    to begin to use see in this much broader
  • 00:52:47
    sense that has to do with examining
  • 00:52:51
    aspects of inference that we use in
  • 00:52:53
    seeing and with that I'll close I want
  • 00:52:56
    to give acknowledgments to everybody in
  • 00:52:58
    my lab this is not everybody in my lab
  • 00:52:59
    throughout the years but many many
  • 00:53:01
    people who worked on this problem and
  • 00:53:02
    many related problems this is my annual
  • 00:53:04
    soccer croquet party in the backyard
  • 00:53:07
    along with now deceased dogs two
  • 00:53:10
    Dalmatians but the the biggest
  • 00:53:14
    acknowledgment what I want to give is to
  • 00:53:16
    Lila Lightman who I started out with and
  • 00:53:19
    I think we share a lot of ideas together
  • 00:53:21
    and certainly the idea of asymmetry is
  • 00:53:23
    one that she holds very very dear and I
  • 00:53:25
    think she'd be happy that I was talking
  • 00:53:26
    about this work thank you
  • 00:53:29
    [Applause]
Etiquetas
  • Barbara Landau
  • language and cognition
  • Susan Goldin-Meadow
  • recoating hypothesis
  • cognitive development
  • language influence
  • thought processes
  • syntactic structures
  • blind children
  • empirical research