14
The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker Chapter 3 Graphic Organizer by Sheila Cook

Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

Chapter 3Graphic Organizer

by Sheila Cook

Chapter 3Graphic Organizer

by Sheila Cook

Page 2: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

What is Mentalese?What is Mentalese? As Steven Pinker defines it, As Steven Pinker defines it,

mentalesementalese is “the language of is “the language of thought” (45).thought” (45).

Throughout the chapter, Pinker Throughout the chapter, Pinker discusses the same question. discusses the same question. Is Is thought dependant on words? thought dependant on words? So I ask you, is it??So I ask you, is it??

As Steven Pinker defines it, As Steven Pinker defines it, mentalesementalese is “the language of is “the language of thought” (45).thought” (45).

Throughout the chapter, Pinker Throughout the chapter, Pinker discusses the same question. discusses the same question. Is Is thought dependant on words? thought dependant on words? So I ask you, is it??So I ask you, is it??

Page 3: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

NO!NO!NO!NO! ““The idea that thought is the same The idea that thought is the same

thing as language is an example of…thing as language is an example of…conventional absurdity: a statement conventional absurdity: a statement that goes against all common sense but that goes against all common sense but that everyone believes because they that everyone believes because they dimly recall having heard it somewhere dimly recall having heard it somewhere and because it is so pregnant with and because it is so pregnant with implications” (Pinker, 47).implications” (Pinker, 47).

““The idea that thought is the same The idea that thought is the same thing as language is an example of…thing as language is an example of…conventional absurdity: a statement conventional absurdity: a statement that goes against all common sense but that goes against all common sense but that everyone believes because they that everyone believes because they dimly recall having heard it somewhere dimly recall having heard it somewhere and because it is so pregnant with and because it is so pregnant with implications” (Pinker, 47).implications” (Pinker, 47).

Page 4: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

“That’s Not What I Meant to Say”

“That’s Not What I Meant to Say” As Pinker discusses, often we catch As Pinker discusses, often we catch

ourselves saying something that we ourselves saying something that we simply did not mean to say, grasping for simply did not mean to say, grasping for words that we cannot seem to fine, words that we cannot seem to fine, although we know what we want to say. although we know what we want to say. How, then, must thoughts be words How, then, must thoughts be words when we mean to say one thing and say when we mean to say one thing and say another, or when we cannot find the another, or when we cannot find the words to convey exactly what it is that words to convey exactly what it is that we mean?we mean?

As Pinker discusses, often we catch As Pinker discusses, often we catch ourselves saying something that we ourselves saying something that we simply did not mean to say, grasping for simply did not mean to say, grasping for words that we cannot seem to fine, words that we cannot seem to fine, although we know what we want to say. although we know what we want to say. How, then, must thoughts be words How, then, must thoughts be words when we mean to say one thing and say when we mean to say one thing and say another, or when we cannot find the another, or when we cannot find the words to convey exactly what it is that words to convey exactly what it is that we mean?we mean?

Page 5: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

It has never been proven that language It has never been proven that language dramatically shapes the way it’s speakers dramatically shapes the way it’s speakers think (Pinker, 48).think (Pinker, 48).

It has never been proven that language It has never been proven that language dramatically shapes the way it’s speakers dramatically shapes the way it’s speakers think (Pinker, 48).think (Pinker, 48).Pinker makes a very strong Pinker makes a very strong argument against language shaping argument against language shaping our thoughts. He explains that our thoughts. He explains that English speakers do not see colors English speakers do not see colors differently than, lets say Spanish differently than, lets say Spanish speakers, simply because we have speakers, simply because we have different names for the color. different names for the color. Regardless of if you call it “rojo” or Regardless of if you call it “rojo” or “red”, a Macintosh Apple is always “red”, a Macintosh Apple is always going to be the same color.going to be the same color.

Page 6: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Subjunctive ConstructionSubjunctive Construction

As English speakers, we are accustomed to As English speakers, we are accustomed to saying things like “I Kate were to go to the store, saying things like “I Kate were to go to the store, she would see Amy.” Because of this she would see Amy.” Because of this construction, we are used to seeing and dealing construction, we are used to seeing and dealing with hypothetical situations. with hypothetical situations.

Bloom concluded that because of our familiarity Bloom concluded that because of our familiarity with the subjunctive, English speakers are better with the subjunctive, English speakers are better able to “entertain hypothetical false worlds able to “entertain hypothetical false worlds without great mental effort” (Pinker, 57), as without great mental effort” (Pinker, 57), as opposed to Chinese speakers whose language opposed to Chinese speakers whose language does not include a subjective construction.does not include a subjective construction.

As English speakers, we are accustomed to As English speakers, we are accustomed to saying things like “I Kate were to go to the store, saying things like “I Kate were to go to the store, she would see Amy.” Because of this she would see Amy.” Because of this construction, we are used to seeing and dealing construction, we are used to seeing and dealing with hypothetical situations. with hypothetical situations.

Bloom concluded that because of our familiarity Bloom concluded that because of our familiarity with the subjunctive, English speakers are better with the subjunctive, English speakers are better able to “entertain hypothetical false worlds able to “entertain hypothetical false worlds without great mental effort” (Pinker, 57), as without great mental effort” (Pinker, 57), as opposed to Chinese speakers whose language opposed to Chinese speakers whose language does not include a subjective construction.does not include a subjective construction.

Page 7: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Flaws in Bloom’s ExperimentFlaws in Bloom’s Experiment Terry Au, Tohtaro Takano, and Lisa Liu all found

flaws in Bloom’s Experiment Hypothetical situations were written in “stilted Chinese”

so the Chinese participants were already disadvantaged The stories written were “generally ambiguous” as is The Chinese students tended to have more extensive

training in the topics discussed in the stories and would therefore be “better at detectingthe ambigities that Bloom himself missed”

When all of these flaws were corrected, Bloom’s findings were disregarded because the differences vanished proving that even though Chinese does not have the subjective case, Chinese speakers still understand hypothetical situations. (Pinker, 57)

Terry Au, Tohtaro Takano, and Lisa Liu all found flaws in Bloom’s Experiment Hypothetical situations were written in “stilted Chinese”

so the Chinese participants were already disadvantaged The stories written were “generally ambiguous” as is The Chinese students tended to have more extensive

training in the topics discussed in the stories and would therefore be “better at detectingthe ambigities that Bloom himself missed”

When all of these flaws were corrected, Bloom’s findings were disregarded because the differences vanished proving that even though Chinese does not have the subjective case, Chinese speakers still understand hypothetical situations. (Pinker, 57)

Page 8: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Babies are another great example of how Babies are another great example of how thought cannot be language based.thought cannot be language based.

Babies are another great example of how Babies are another great example of how thought cannot be language based.thought cannot be language based.

Babies have thoughts, we are Babies have thoughts, we are all aware of this. But, babies all aware of this. But, babies have thoughts well before have thoughts well before they have developed they have developed language.language.In fact, Wynn’s In fact, Wynn’s experience proved that experience proved that babies as young as babies as young as five five days olddays old are sensitive are sensitive to number!to number!

5 day old baby5 day old baby - Look! - Look! He’s even surprised at He’s even surprised at how many thoughts he’s how many thoughts he’s having, and he hasn’t having, and he hasn’t developed language yet!developed language yet!

Page 9: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

“Kubla Khan”“Kubla Khan” a poem written by Coleridge a poem written by Coleridge He transcribed the first four He transcribed the first four

lines of the poem based solely lines of the poem based solely on on visual images of scenesvisual images of scenes and and wordswords which appeared which appeared before him, reportedly while on before him, reportedly while on opium.opium.

If thoughts are only words, how If thoughts are only words, how could Coleridge have written could Coleridge have written based on visual images? He based on visual images? He couldn’t!couldn’t!

a poem written by Coleridge a poem written by Coleridge He transcribed the first four He transcribed the first four

lines of the poem based solely lines of the poem based solely on on visual images of scenesvisual images of scenes and and wordswords which appeared which appeared before him, reportedly while on before him, reportedly while on opium.opium.

If thoughts are only words, how If thoughts are only words, how could Coleridge have written could Coleridge have written based on visual images? He based on visual images? He couldn’t!couldn’t!

Lithograph of Poem

Page 10: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Shepard’s Letter Rotation Experiment

Shepard’s Letter Rotation Experiment

Shepard proved through his letter rotation Shepard proved through his letter rotation experiment, that subjects had to mentally experiment, that subjects had to mentally rotate each image to tell if the rotated letter he rotate each image to tell if the rotated letter he was shown was backwards or forwards.was shown was backwards or forwards.

The farther away the letter was from being right The farther away the letter was from being right side up, the longer it took for the subject to side up, the longer it took for the subject to figure out which way it was placed.figure out which way it was placed.

Showing that “visual thinking uses not language Showing that “visual thinking uses not language but a mental graphics system, wit operations but a mental graphics system, wit operations that rotate, scan, zoom, pan, displace and fill in that rotate, scan, zoom, pan, displace and fill in patters of contours” (Pinker, 63).patters of contours” (Pinker, 63).

Shepard proved through his letter rotation Shepard proved through his letter rotation experiment, that subjects had to mentally experiment, that subjects had to mentally rotate each image to tell if the rotated letter he rotate each image to tell if the rotated letter he was shown was backwards or forwards.was shown was backwards or forwards.

The farther away the letter was from being right The farther away the letter was from being right side up, the longer it took for the subject to side up, the longer it took for the subject to figure out which way it was placed.figure out which way it was placed.

Showing that “visual thinking uses not language Showing that “visual thinking uses not language but a mental graphics system, wit operations but a mental graphics system, wit operations that rotate, scan, zoom, pan, displace and fill in that rotate, scan, zoom, pan, displace and fill in patters of contours” (Pinker, 63).patters of contours” (Pinker, 63).

Page 11: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

Turing Machine and the “Little Man” Theory

Turing Machine and the “Little Man” Theory

Alan Turing described a hypothetical Alan Turing described a hypothetical machine with the capacity to reason.machine with the capacity to reason.

This machine, however, did not have the This machine, however, did not have the capacity to reason on its own, the proper capacity to reason on its own, the proper formula.formula. Ex: If A = B and B = C, then A = CEx: If A = B and B = C, then A = C

We also make this assertion above. While We also make this assertion above. While the Turing machine has no understanding the Turing machine has no understanding of the concept, it simply follows the of the concept, it simply follows the equation given, is that how our own minds equation given, is that how our own minds operate?operate?

(Pinker, 64-69)

Alan Turing described a hypothetical Alan Turing described a hypothetical machine with the capacity to reason.machine with the capacity to reason.

This machine, however, did not have the This machine, however, did not have the capacity to reason on its own, the proper capacity to reason on its own, the proper formula.formula. Ex: If A = B and B = C, then A = CEx: If A = B and B = C, then A = C

We also make this assertion above. While We also make this assertion above. While the Turing machine has no understanding the Turing machine has no understanding of the concept, it simply follows the of the concept, it simply follows the equation given, is that how our own minds equation given, is that how our own minds operate?operate?

(Pinker, 64-69)

Page 12: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

NO!NO!NO!NO! The English language, and every

other language, cannot operate in that manner due to a few issues: Ambiguity Lack of Logical Explicitness “Co-Reference” “Deixis” Synonymy (Pinker,

69-72)

The English language, and every other language, cannot operate in that manner due to a few issues: Ambiguity Lack of Logical Explicitness “Co-Reference” “Deixis” Synonymy (Pinker,

69-72)

Page 13: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

ConclusionsConclusions

““People do not think in English or Chinese or People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought” Apache; they think in a language of thought” (Pinker, 72).(Pinker, 72).

““Mentalese must be simpler than spoken Mentalese must be simpler than spoken language; conversation-specific words and language; conversation-specific words and constructions (like constructions (like aa and and thethe) are absent, ) are absent, and information about pronouncing words, or and information about pronouncing words, or even ordering them, is unnecessary” (Pinker, even ordering them, is unnecessary” (Pinker, 73).73).

““Knowing a language, then, is knowing how Knowing a language, then, is knowing how to translate mentalese into strings of words to translate mentalese into strings of words and vice versa” (Pinker, 73).and vice versa” (Pinker, 73).

““People do not think in English or Chinese or People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought” Apache; they think in a language of thought” (Pinker, 72).(Pinker, 72).

““Mentalese must be simpler than spoken Mentalese must be simpler than spoken language; conversation-specific words and language; conversation-specific words and constructions (like constructions (like aa and and thethe) are absent, ) are absent, and information about pronouncing words, or and information about pronouncing words, or even ordering them, is unnecessary” (Pinker, even ordering them, is unnecessary” (Pinker, 73).73).

““Knowing a language, then, is knowing how Knowing a language, then, is knowing how to translate mentalese into strings of words to translate mentalese into strings of words and vice versa” (Pinker, 73).and vice versa” (Pinker, 73).

Page 14: Pinker Chapter 3 Presentation

CitationsCitations

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. (pp.44-73). New York: Harper Perennial Modern

Classics. Google Images (n.d.) Retrieved

from http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=

en&tab=wi

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. (pp.44-73). New York: Harper Perennial Modern

Classics. Google Images (n.d.) Retrieved

from http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=

en&tab=wi