Introduction to
Cognitive Linguistics
Helena H. Gao
Graduate Institute of Linguistics
Fu-Jen University
2005
Lecture 2; 5 Oct. 2005
Required readings:



Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, mind, and reality. In: J.B. Carroll (ed.), Language,
thought and reality. selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: the MIT Press. pp. 246-270.
Fodor, J. (1990). Defending the “language of thought”. In W. G. Lycan (ed.),
Mind and congnition. A reader. Basil Blackwell. pp. 282-310
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar,
Evolution. Oxford University Press. Chapter 2: Language as a Mental
Phenomenon. pp. 19-37
Recommended readings:
 Whorf, B. L. (1956) The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to
Language. In: J.B. Carroll (ed.), Language, thought and reality. selected writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT Press. pp. 134-159.
 Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2003). The representation of grammatical
categories in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 201-206.
Lecture 2
5 Oct., 2005
Language, Mind, and Thought
What is Thought

Thought or thinking is a mental process which allows
beings to model the world, and so to deal with it
effectively according to their goals, plans, ends and
desires. Concepts akin to thought are sentience,
consciousness, idea, and imagination. (Wikipedia
Encyclopedia)
The meanings of Thought revealed in its use in language:
 “The thought never entered my mind."
 “Thinking always made him frown."; “She paused for thought."
 "19th century thought"; "Darwinian thought"
 “My opinion differs from yours"; “What are your thoughts on
this proposal?"
What is Mind


The mind is the term most commonly used to
describe the higher functions of the human
brain, particularly those of which humans are
subjectively conscious, such as personality,
thought, reason, memory, intelligence and
emotion. (Wikipedia Encyclopedia)
Understanding Mind by its use in Language
His mind wandered.
 The idea came to mind.
 Follow your mind, not your heart.
 I don't mind your behavior.
 She changed her mind.






The great minds of the 20th century
Don't pay him any mind.
He had in mind to see his old teacher.
He reads to improve his mind.
Things to keep in mind when preparing a talk.
Different Theories

Mind is a device that operates according to strict
rules concerning the manipulation of symbols


The mind is some sort of digital processor that runs
on the highly parallel neural structure of the brain
Since about the mid-1980s researchers have
increasingly challenged the idea that the mind is
a computational device.
Three dominant theories in the past
hundreds of years



The blank slate (John Locke: 1632-1704 )
 compares mind to white paper inscribed gradually by
experience
The noble savage (Jean Jacques Rouseau:1712-1778)
 “nothing could be more gentle than [man] in his
primitive state” (Translated by G.D. Cole, 1913, p.
207)
The ghost in machine (Rene Descarte: 1596 - 1650)
 belief in the division of soul and body
Challenges to the trilogy of theories


Modern sciences – particularly cognitive
understanding, evolutionary psychology, and
neurology
“There have to be some innate mechanisms to
do the learning, to achieve the socializing, to
create and transmit the culture” upon which
experiences are based (Pinker, August, 2005).
Innate Mechanisms (Pinker, 2005)

From a cognitive perspective, such mechanisms
include
a sense of spatial representation
 the ability to grasp the thoughts of others
 a language instinct
 decision rules that govern behavior


Other human drives can only be understood
within the context of evolution.
Different Theories The modularity hypothesis of language
The Mind/Brain
Big Modularity
{Language
Lexicon
‘irregulars’
General Cognition
Rule System
‘regulars’
}
Little Modularity
Different Theories – “Mentalese”



The medium of thought is an innate, behind-the-scenes
language known as mentalese. (e.g., Fodor, 1975; Pinker,
1994)
"Mentalese" is supposed to be an inner language that
contains all of the conceptual resources necessary for
any of the propositions that humans can grasp, think or
express--in short, the basis of thought and meaning.
Natural language would not in itself shape the human
mind in any fundamental way, although the internal
mentalese thoughts being represented by the natural
language sentences would.
Fodor's Language of Thought
(LOT) Hypothesis


Including five components:
(1) Representational Realism: Thinkers have
explicit representational systems; to think a
thought with a given content is to be
appropriately related to a representation with the
right meaning, e.g., to have the belief that
capitalism breeds greed is to have a
representational token with the content
"capitalism breeds greed" in one's belief box.
Fodor's Language of Thought
(LOT) Hypothesis


Including five components:
(2) Linguistic Thought: The (main) representational
system that underlies human thought, and perhaps that
underlies thought in other species too, is semantically
and syntactically language-like, i.e., it is similar to
spoken human languages. Specifically, this
representational system consists of syntactic tokens
that are capable of expressing propositional meanings
in virtue of the semantic compositionalilty of the
syntactic elements. E.g., there are mental words that
express concepts (and the like) that can be formed into
true or false mental sentences.
Fodor's Language of Thought
(LOT) Hypothesis




Including five components:
(3) Distinctness: The language of thought is not identical
to any spoken language.
(4) Nativism: There is a single genetically determined
mental language possessed by humans, and perhaps (at
least partially possessed) by all other thinking species.
(5) Semantic Completeness: This language is expressively
semantically complete--any predicate that we are able to
semantically comprehend is expressible in this
language.
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language:
Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution

If UG is not learned, how does the child
acquire it? The only alternative is through
the structure of the brain, which is
determined through a combination of
genetic inheritance and the biological
processes resulting from expression of the
genes, the latter in turn determined by
some combination of inherent structure
and environmental input.
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language:
Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution

Generative grammar was mistaken to assume



the syntactic component is the sole course of
combinatoriality, and everything else is "interpretive.“
The proper approach is a parallel architecture, in which
phonology, syntax, and semantics are autonomous
generative systems, linked by interface components.
The parallel architecture leads to an integration within
linguistics, and to a far better integration with the rest
of cognitive neuroscience
Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

Actually, thinking is most mysterious, and by far the greatest light upon it
that we have is thrown by the study of language. This study shows that
the forms of a person's thoughts are controlled by inexorable laws of
pattern of which he is-unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived
intricate systematizations of his own language--shown readily enough by
a candid comparison and contrast with other languages, especially those
of a different linguistic family. … every language is a vast patternsystem, different from others, in which are culturally ordained the forms
and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also
analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationship and
phenomena, channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his
consciousness.
(whorf, 1956. p. 252)
Different Theories

The other theory states that a person's language
of thought is their native natural language -- for
example, English for English speakers, French
for French speakers, or Japanese for Japanese
speakers.
Different Theories –
Sapir and Whorf Hypothesis

Our thoughts are constructed from sentences of
natural language. (e.g., Sapir and Whorf on
linguistic determinism; Wittgenstein's work on
meaning and representation)
Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

The structure of one’s language influences the manner
in which one perceives and understands the world

Therefore, speakers of different languages will
perceive the world differently
Whorf , B. (1939). The Relation of Habitual Thought &
Behavior to Language
1)
Are our own concepts of time, space, and matter given in
substantially the same form by experience to all men, or
are they in part conditioned by the structure of particular
languages?
2)
Are there traceable affinities between (a) cultural and
behavioral norms and (b) large-scale linguistic patterns?
Degrees of Whorfianism

Linguistic Determinism (strong Whorfianism) =
Language determines our perception of the world

Linguistic Relativism (weak Whorfianism) =
Language biases our perception of the world
Different Whorfian Questions
(Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003)

Language as a Category Maker: Does the language we
acquire influence where we make our category
distinctions?

Language as a Lens: Do grammatical characteristics of
a language shape speakers’ perceptions of the world?

Language as a Toolkit: Does language augment our
capacity for reasoning and representation?

Gentner, Dedre and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2003. Whither Whorf ? In Gentner & GoldinMeadow (eds.) Language in Mind. MIT Press.
Different Whorfian Questions
(Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003)

Language as a Category Maker:

Does the language we acquire influence where we make our
category distinctions?

Sound inventory of a language and perception of speech sounds
in native & foreign languages

Color terms and color perception
Different Whorfian Questions
(Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003)

Language as a Lens:

Do grammatical characteristics of a language shape
speakers’ perceptions of the world?

Spatial Frames of Reference (relative vs. absolute)

Motion Events (manner encoded in verb or PP)

Language for Spatial Location Relationships
Different Whorfian Questions
(Gentner & Goldin-Meadow, 2003)

Language as a Toolkit:

Does language augment our capacity for reasoning
and representation?

Navigation (combining core knowledge systems info [geometric &
color])

Number (combining core knowledge systems info [small, exact
numbers & large, approximate numbers])

Theory of Mind (realizing that someone can have a different point
of view than you - when does this realization come, and how?)
Children’s developing theory of
mind



2 y-olds: Starting to use terms referring to
mental states.
3-4 y-olds: starting to acquire an understanding
that others can hold false beliefs
6 y-olds: starting to understand that others can
have knowledge through inference
Wimmer and Perner (1983)



False-Belief task
Can a child understand that someone else can
have a different belief (a false belief) despite the
child possessing the correct belief ?
Allows researchers to separate the beliefs of the
research participant from the beliefs of the
model.
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
The False-Belief Task
Where will bunny look for her toy?
The False-Belief Task
Where will bunny look for her toy?
•To succeed, child must separate their
own beliefs (the true belief) and
attribute a false-belief to Bunny.
The False-Belief Task
Where will bunny look for her toy?
•To succeed, child must separate their
own beliefs (the true belief) and
attribute a false-belief to Bunny.
4-year-olds
The False-Belief Task
Where will bunny look for her toy?
•To succeed, child must separate their
own beliefs (the true belief) and
attribute a false-belief to Bunny.
4-year-olds
3-year-olds
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
3-year-olds have difficulty
coordinating two different
representations of a single situation
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Smarties task
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Smarties task
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Smarties task
E: What do you think is
in the box?
C: Smarties
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Smarties task
E: What’s really in the box?
C: Ribbons.
E: What did you think was
in the box before?
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Smarties task
E: What’s really in the box?
C: Ribbons.
E: What did you think was
in the box before?
3-year-olds say ribbons
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Appearance-Reality Task
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Appearance-Reality Task
E: What does it look like?
C: A rock
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Appearance-Reality Task
Child discovers the rock
is actually a sponge
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Appearance-Reality Task
E: What is it really?
C: A sponge
E: What does it look like?
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties
Appearance-Reality Task
E: What is it really?
C: A sponge
E: What does it look like?
3-year-olds say it looks like a sponge
False-belief task


Why do 3-year-olds fail the task?
(1) Age-related conceptual difficulties


Performance in a variety of tasks suggest that 3year-olds have difficulty coordinating two different
representations of a single situation
(2) Problems of response control
Can we find any language data to support Sapir
and Whorf Hypothesis?
Swedish expressions that have direct Chinese
equivalents but are associated with different animals


När katten är borta dansar råttorna på bordet.
 When the cat is gone, the rats dance on the table.
Shan zhong wu laohu, houzi cheng da wang.
 When there are no tigers in the mountain, monkeys will be
kings.

flitig som en myra

as diligent as an ant


xiàng mìfëng yíyàng qínfèn

as diligent as bees
Same expressions that exist in both Swedish and
Chinese:

Bättre en fågel in handen än tio i skogen.

A bird in the hand is better than ten in the bush.

Yì niâo zài shôu yuân shèng liâng niâo zài
lín.

frogen som en hund
xiàng gôu yíyàng zhöngshï


as faithful as a do