Language & Thought: Gleitman & Papgragou (2017)

1. Though it is not defined in the reading, based on the context provided, what do the authors mean by natural language?

2. In the section of the chapter “Language is sketchy, thought is right,” Gleitman & Papgragou outline many examples of how linguist expressions do not align with the thought underlying the utterance, e.g. “my uncle” references a specific uncle by the speaker but that is not conveyed linguistically. Based on this and their other examples, can you think of an example of an utterance that would not match the underlying thought.

3. The authors state pheonemic distinctions in a native language “are categorical in the sense that sensitivity to within-category phonetic distinctions is poor and sensitivity at the phonemic boundaries is especially acute” (p. 18). The authors do not really explain what they mean by this with any specificity. Take a stab at what they might mean by this in your own words.

4. The authors report on a study in which language influences color categorization in some contexts but not others (p. 22). Summarize the contexts in which language does and does not have an affect on perception of hue.

5. In the “Objects and substances” section (p. 24-30), the authors reviewed findings from Soja, Carey & Spelke (1991) that found differences in how 2-year-old English speakers and 2-year-old Japanese speakers class count and mass nouns. In a follow up test of the “language-on-language” hypothesis, Li, Dunham & Carey (2009) conducted a similar study with an added condition that “did not require the subjects to interpret the meaning of the noun stimuli.” Explain what the authors mean by the quoted phrase and how it relates to the sketchy character of language and a probabilistic interpretation of meaning.

6. The difference in spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans and Dutch/English participants (p. 37-41) is an often cited example of how language influences thought. Explain the evidence that Gleitman & Papgragou present that the of the original findings are another “language-on-language” effect.

7. In the section on “Time” (p. 43-44), they cite Boroditsky (2001) who concludes from her study that Mandarin and English speakers perceive time differently.
   1. What do they mean by the metaphor of time in language?
   2. Summarize Boroditsky’s main experimental design and findings.
   3. Boroditsky also performed a manipulation in which she explained the Mandarin metaphor to English speakers. What was the result?
   4. How does this section in particular make you think about the premise of Arrival?

8. In the “Orientation” section, what do the authors mean by the term modularity, and how does this relate to thought being composed of language?

9. Do you have any questions that you want to discuss in class?