Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  LANGUAGE AND THINKING
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Languages in the World differ in many aspects. Do linguistic differences lead to differences in thinking? If the answer is in the affirmative, then which aspects of language cause differences in thinking, and how strong is their effect? The article discusses the relationship between language and thinking and the different conceptions of linguistic relativity. Linguistic relativity claims that linguistic differences cause differences in thinking. A unique conception of linguistic relativity is called processing relativity: certain types of languages use the universal processing mechanisms in a different way. Linguistic relativity can be interpreted in the context of neuroplasticity as well: can different (first-) language experiences affect the fixation of plastic brain areas? In this respect we touch upon recent neuroimaging and genetics results from the field of tonal languages. Taken together, we advocate the weak version of linguistic relativity, the universal processing mechanisms, and the linguistic governing of neuroplasticity.
EN
This study aimed to reveal the relationship between language and thinking, more specifically the linguistic relativism theory as formulated by Levinson (1996) and colleagues (Pederson, Danziger et al., 1998). The authors examined developmental change in the use of frames of reference in five typically developing groups (3-10 years) and a Williams syndrome group (7-21 years). Williams syndrome children were chosen to tease apart the different effects of language (relatively unimpaired) and cognition (mildly/severly impaired). Participants had to memorize a spatial array, then turn 180° and choose between two arrays, differing only in their frame of reference (relative or absolute). The authors also administered various tests (TROG, RAVEN, Corsi, RMET) to examine individual differences. The developmental trend was exactly the opposite of the hypothesis posed by Levinson: speakers of an inherently intrinsic/relative language seemed to prefer absolute choices increasingly with age. Yet a connection between language and reference frames could not be established by way of a correlation between administered language proficiency tests and preferred frame of reference. Williams syndrome children showed radically different preferences in the test, so we must conclude that their relatively impaired language could not give them a crutch in the task. The authors conclude that probably there is a threefold causality in the choice of reference frame in children: 1. Biological effects (such as sex and handedness) and 2. individual differences (such as intelligence and spatial memory) have a large impact on spatial reference choices (possibly only in childhood). 3. Both immediate (visible allocentric and egocentric cues) and general environment (education, culture) are important, yet language alone does seem to play a role.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.