Psyc 1306 Language and Thought Spatial Frames of Reference 2

► “Where is the umbrella?”  GEOCENTRIC ► The umbrella is south of the bed.  OBJECT-BASED ► The umbrella is at the head of the bed.  EGOCENTRIC  EGOCENTRIC (special OBJECT-BASED FRAME) ► The umbrella is to the left of the bed. Frames of Reference (how one talks about the directions and locations of objects in space…) Figure Ground or Reference Object

Crosslinguistic Variations ► Linguistic Descriptions (Levinson 2003; Brown & Levinson, 1993; Pederson et al., 1998; Majid et al., 2004, etc.) ? *picture from D. Haun

Crosslinguistic Variations ► English  Egocentric preference ► “left” and “right” (Levinson 2003; Brown & Levinson, 1993; Pederson et al., 1998; Majid et al., 2004, etc.)

Crosslinguistic Variations ► Tseltal Mayan (spoken in Tenejapa, Mexico) (Brown & Levinson, 1993; Pederson et al., 1998; Majid et al., 2004, etc.) Tenejapa, Chiapas Mexico

Crosslinguistic Variations ► Tseltal Mayan (spoken in Tenejapa, Mexico)  Geocentric preference ► alan “downhill” (N), aj’kol “uphill” (S), jejch “crosshill” (EW)  Lexical Gap: No projective left or right! uphill downhill crosshill (Brown & Levinson, 1993; Pederson et al., 1998; Majid et al., 2004, etc.)

Tenejapans [i.e., Tseltal speakers] show an interesting tendency to confuse left-right inversions or mirror-images, even when visually presented simultaneously, which seems related to their absence of ‘left’ and ‘right’ terms. (Levinson, 1996 in Gumperz & Levinson: 182) (Levinson, 1996 in Gumperz & Levinson: 182) Lexical Gap Leads to Conceptual Gap

Tenejapans maintain a constant sense of absolute orientation, presumably by running a continuous background computation… with respect to abstract bearings, integrating multiple internal and external cues to achieve this. Levinson, Kita, Haun, & Rasch (2002) p. 173 Language Preference Leads to Cognitive Habits and Expertise

► Linguistic Determinism  Language-specific categories determine non- linguistic representations. ► Tseltal speakers will have extreme difficulty with tasks requiring egocentric representations. ► Moderate Linguistic Relativity  Language-specific categories result in habitual tendencies and expertise in thought. ► Tseltal speakers prefer (and are experts at) geocentric representations and find tasks requiring egocentric representations difficult. ► English speakers show the reverse pattern EgocentricGeocentric Claims of Language Influence on Thought Tseltal Speakers English Speakers

N 180º EGOCENTRIC Tseltal speakers English speakers GEOCENTRIC Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (Brown & Levinson, 1993; Pederson et al. 1998; Majid et al. 2004, etc…) Blue dot “left” of red dot. Blue dot “north” of red dot.

N 180º Nature of Language Driven Preference ► What is the scope of the language effect?  Scope is wide: Influence is deep. ► Preference reflects habit and expertise for reasoning in that Frame of Reference. (e.g., Levinson, 2003; Majid et al., 2004) (e.g., Levinson, 2003; Majid et al., 2004)

N 180º Nature of Language Driven Preference ► What is the scope of the language effect?  Scope is narrow: Influence is shallow. ► Preference reflects a language on language effect. (Gleitman & Papafragou, 2005; Li & Gleitman, 2002)

N 180º Nature of Language Driven Preference ► What is the scope of the language effect?  Scope is narrow: Influence is shallow.  Make it/Find the same? ► The instruction is open-ended. The participant has to interpret the experimenter’s intended meaning. ► ► How one’s linguistic community customarily speaks about or responds to inquiries about locations and directions might come to influence what appropriately counts as the “same” spatial array.

N 180º Nature of Language Driven Preference ► What is the scope of the language effect?   If language effect is narrow/shallow, restricted to open-ended tasks, then language effect should likely disappear when the tasks are no longer open-ended.   If language effect is wide/deep, language effect should likely persist even when the tasks are no longer open-ended.

New Methodolgy ► ► Compare speakers on unambiguous tasks for which the solutions must match the Egocentric or the Geocentric perspective. Table 2 Table 1 Egocentric Condition Geocentric Condition N 180º N

New Methodolgy ► ► Compare speakers on unambiguous tasks for which the solutions must match the Egocentric or the Geocentric perspective. ► ► Egocentric alone.  Is Egocentric extremely hard for Tseltal speakers? ► ► Egocentric vs. Geocentric.  Is Geocentric easier than Egocentric for Tseltal speakers? ► ► Tseltal vs. English Speakers. Easy Hard   English Speakers Hard   Easy Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric Easy Hard  English Speakers Hard  Easy Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric

Unambiguous Chips Task Egocentric Condition Geocentric Condition

Unambiguous Chips Task Egocentric Condition Geocentric Condition

Unambiguous Chips Task Egocentric Condition Geocentric Condition Egocentric condition: Chips Card rotated 180 degrees to Table 2. Geocentric condition: Chips Card moved to Table 2 without rotation.

Unambiguous Chips Task Egocentric Condition Geocentric Condition Egocentric condition: Chips Card rotated 180 degrees to Table 2. Geocentric condition: Chips Card moved to Table 2 without rotation.

Unambiguous Chips Task ► 26 Monolingual Tseltal Speakers  Between-Ss design  ½ Egocentric, ½ Geocentric ► Select “same” card:  8 Test trials (Table 2, after 180 Turn)  Varied/Counterbalanced UD-EW/LR-NS orientations (but n.s.)

(n=10) English Speaking Adults % Trials Correct English Speaking Children (6-7y.o.) (n=10)(n=8) (n=9) Tseltal Speaking Adults (n=13) Unambiguous Chips Task Result Egocentric Geocentric /

Unambiguous Chips Task Summary ► Egocentric : Rules out strong version that questions the availability of Egocentric FoR in Tseltal speakers. ► Egocentric = Geocentric : Tseltal speakers could keep track of the relationship between the card dots not only with respect to the environment, but with respect to themselves in memory. ► Tseltal vs. English: Both groups have available the two frames of reference. Easy English Speakers Easy Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric Easy English Speakers Easy Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric Easy Easy Easy Easy

Table 2 Table 1 Unambiguous Maze Task 1.Experimenter (E) rolls out a path. 2.Covers the maze to mask path after-image. …. (Step 3. movement of Ss and maze to table 2)… 4. Participant asked to roll out the same path.

Table 2 Table 1 Egocentric condition: Maze rotated 180 degrees to Table 2. Geocentric condition: Maze moved to Table 2 without rotation. Unambiguous Maze Task Step 3 As in Experiment 1

Unambiguous Maze Task ► Same Ss as Exp. 1 in same condition. ► 10 Test Trials  Two 1-leg paths  Four 2-leg paths  Four 3-leg paths 1-leg 2-legs 3-legs

Unambiguous Maze Task Results ANOVA: Condition (p <.001), Legs (p <.001), Condition x Leg (p <.001) Leg2-Legs3-Legs % Trials Correct Egocentric Geocentric

Unambiguous Maze Task Summary ► Egocentric ► Egocentric ► Egocentric better than Geocentric  for Tseltal speakers  Geocentric:  Geocentric: Poor performance is inconsistent with language making geocentric FoR more available in Tseltal speakers’ thought.  Egocentric better than Geocentric: The perspective and position from which a person takes in information about a visual scene can often be advantaged in memory. Towards sunrise, then downhill.

Unambiguous Maze Task Comparison between Groups Easy Hard   Easy Hard  English Speakers Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric English Speakers Tseltal Speakers EgocentricGeocentric Harder   Easier ► Tseltal Speakers vs. English Speakers  Is this true?

Unambiguous Maze Task Leg2-Legs3-Legs % Trials Correct E (n=13) G (n=13) Tseltal Speaking Adults Are Tseltal speakers better on Geocentric condition than English speakers?

Unambiguous Maze Task English Speaking Children ( 6-7y.o.) Leg2-Legs3-Legs % Trials Correct E (n=8) G (n=9) Leg2-Legs3-Legs % Trials Correct E (n=13) G (n=13) Tseltal Speaking Adults Are Tseltal speakers worse on Egocentric condition than English speakers?

Unambiguous Maze Task Summary ► Egocentric ► Egocentric ► Egocentric better than Geocentric  for Tseltal speakers ► Tseltal Speakers vs. English Speakers  Contrary to previous claims of linguistic relativity, Tseltal and English speakers are more alike than different in how they reason about spatial relationships. Easy Hard   Easy Hard   Easy Hard   English Speakers Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric Easy Hard   English Speakers Tseltal Speakers Egocentric Geocentric

Language Usage ► Language Elicitation Task  Participants of Experiments 1 & 2  “Banti stojol” – where is it heading?

Language Usage ► Language Elicitation Task ► 104 response =  (4 responses / participant) x 26 participants ► Response Breakdown  28 sun (towards sunset: ta smalib k´aal)  22 landscape (towards uphill: ta ajk´ol)  12 Spanish cardinal terms (towards the north: ta norte/sur/este/oeste)  22 Neighboring parajes or towns (towards Canyada, ta Canyada)  16 local man-made landmarks (towards the street: ta carretera)  4 non-geocentric reference inside testing room (towards you: ta atojol ). 1 Ss ► NO Left/Right or Front/Back Use

Circle Task 1.The experimenter hides the coin in one of the yellow cups at Table 1. 2.The experimenter moves the display to Table 2. 3.Then participants turns 180° to walk to Table 2. 4.Participant points to the cup. Table 1Table 2 Table 1 Table 2 Egocentric condition: Display rotated 180 degrees by Experimenter at Table 2. Geocentric condition: Display moved by Experimenter to Table 2 without rotation. 180º

Circle Task ► 16 New Monolingual Tseltal Speakers  4 Practice Trials (1 table only)  16 Test Trials (2 tables) ► Within-Ss Design ► 8 Egocentric, 8 Geocentric Trials ► Blocked and counterbalanced.

Circle Task Results practice egocentricgeocentric % Correct 95% 77% 60% chance 2 (Perspective: Geo, Ego) x 2 (Block Order: Geo first, Ego first) ANOVA 1 Effect found: Perspective (F(1, 14) = 16.92, p =.001) * * * Different from chance: p <.05

Circle Task Summary ► Egocentric ► Egocentric ► Egocentric better than Geocentric  for Tseltal speakers  Replicates MAZE task  The perspective from which a person takes in information about a visual scene can often be advantaged in memory.

Current Findings Contrary to Claims in the Literature ► ► Levinson (2003)   “Absolute [i.e. geocentric] descriptions come without viewpoints. In a way, to think ‘absolutely’ one had better throw away visual memory: after all coffee ‐ pot to left of cup becomes coffee ‐ pot to right of cup from the other side of table – but coffee ‐ pot to north of cup remains constant regardless of viewpoint.” (p. 274).   “Tzeltal speakers can rebuild an assemblage of arbitrary complexity under rotation” (p. 289)   “Tzeltal speakers have an impressive powers of mental rotation… because they construct at once a full 3D model of a scene, rather than hanging onto just one viewpoint” (p. 346)

Swivel Chair Task We called the bluff of our principal informant, who claimed to know day and night, awake or asleep, mountain or plain, where batz'il alan 'true downhill' always lay (a direction he indicated with precision recurrently). We blindfolded him, and spun him around over 20 times in a darkened house. Still blindfolded and dizzy, he pointed in the agreed direction! Brown & Levinson (1993), p. 52

Egocentric Swivel Chair Task Geocentric 1.Participant (P) sits in chair. 2.Experimenter (E) hides a coin in 1 of 2 boxes. 3.E blind-folds P. 4.E spins P. 5.E takes blind-fold off P. 6.P has to point to the box with the coin.

Swivel Chair Task ► 24 NEW Monolingual Tseltal speakers  Within-Subjects Design  8 Trials per Condition (Geo. vs. Ego) ► Blocked, counterbalanced ► 4 Ending positions (90, 180, 270, 360 from initial)  2 trials per ending position  Furnished room (Table, Window, etc.)

egocentricgeocentric % Correct Paired t(23)=2.82, p =.01. Egocentric 92.3% > Geocentric 80.0% Swivel Chair Results

Results by Degree Effect of Condition, Degree, Condition x Degree.

Swivel Chair Results ► Egocentric ► Egocentric ► Egocentric better than Geocentric  !  SURPRISING: No reason to expect poorer performance on Geocentric condition. ► Tseltal speakers could have encoded: “The one downhill/The one next to the table” and answered correctly.  Better performance on the egocentric condition aligns with Maze and Circle task though.  Tseltal speakers spatial reasoning is viewpoint dependent!

Recapitulation ► ► Questioning Methodology   Open-ended Tasks (Find the “same”) ► ► Do previous studies really show one’s cognitive habit is aligned with the preference of one’s language community? ► ► Or do they show that knowledge of how our linguistic community typically communicates influences how one interprets ambiguous spatial task?   Changed method to UNAMBIGUOUS task: ► Lead to DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS!

Summary of Data from Tseltal Speakers ► Language ► Chips ► Maze ► Circles ► Swivel Chair EgocentricGeocentricTask Language Thought

► Linguistic Determinism  Language-specific categories determine non- linguistic representations. ► Moderate Linguistic Relativity  Language-specific categories result in habitual tendencies and expertise in thought. ► Cognitive Universalism EgocentricGeocentric Which Claim is Supported by New Data? Tseltal Speakers English Speakers Tseltal & English Speakers Tseltal Speakers

What about Haun et al (2006) PNAS? ► Common phylogenetic inheritance of a preference of allocentric strategy ► Such preference can be overwritten by cultural preference for egocentric strategy

What about Haun et al (2006) PNAS? ► Comment from a reviewer: The authors conclude "egocentric reasoning seems to be easier than geocentric reasoning". This is the Piagetian claim of course, but both my lab and the authors actually know better. We have shown that the default preference across all great apes and human infants is geocentric or at least allocentric (PNAS 103, ). It is somewhat disingenuous then to pretend otherwise for the sake of the current argument - at least we would need some explanation here.

P Other Problematic Experimental Data 2 other sets of data ► Gesture Data ► Pointing to unseen location PigeonsTseltal SpeakersDutch Speakers ‘HOME’

Slide from Peggy

Next Week ► Combinatorial Nature of Language ► Modularity ► Core Knowledge

Muller-Lyer illusion

Modularity Fodor (1983) 1. Domain specificity, modules only operate on certain kinds of inputs – they are specialized 2. Informational encapsulation, modules need not refer to other psychological systems in order to operate 3. Obligatory firing, modules process in a mandatory manner 4. Fast speed, probably due to the fact that they are encapsulated (thereby needing only to consult a restricted database) and mandatory (time need not be wasted in determining whether or not to process incoming input) 5. Shallow outputs, the output of modules is very simple 6. Limited accessibility 7. Characteristic ontogeny, there is a regularity of development 8. Fixed neural architecture.

Core Knowledge Carey & Spelke (1994) ► We argue that human reasoning is guided by a collection of innate domain-specific systems of knowledge. Each system is characterized by a set of core principles that define the entities covered by the domain and support reasoning about those entities … ► Learning on this view consists of an enrichment of the core principles, plus their entrenchment, along with the entrenchment of the ontology they determine.”

A new proposal ► Language could create concepts  By providing combinatorial/symbolic structure  Especially during development ► Language acquisition = process of concept construction.

Examples ► Spelke: Language may link more specialized cognitive modules & enable us to perform more complex combinatorics (e.g. for orientation in space) ► Carey, Xu: Labeling may promote attention to objects ► De Villiers: Linguistic structure (complex sentences) may bootstrap cognitive structure (complex thoughts)

A two-tier system ► Core concepts (universal, maybe shared with other species) + ► More complex concepts (perhaps constructed through language)