Main content
MCAT
Course: MCAT > Unit 10
Lesson 11: Language- Language questions
- Language questions 2
- Theories of the early stages of language acquisition
- Language and the brain: Aphasia and split-brain patients
- Theories of language and cognition
- Theories of language development: Nativist, learning, interactionist
© 2023 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Theories of language and cognition
Learn about theories of the relationship between language and cognition. By Carole Yue. . Created by Carole Yue.
Want to join the conversation?
- At, Yue mentions that the direction of a language's script may affect its speakers' visualization of an example sentence. That idea was really cool. :) But it was totally different from what I expected. 4:00
The first factor I thought of was the morphosyntactic alignment of the language. (Basically, the order of the words.) "Girl pushes boy" vs. "Boy pushed by girl", for example.
Can a language be conflated by its script? Speech has existed far before the invention of writing, many languages still have no script, and some languages are commonly written in multiple scripts, occasionally in opposite directions. For example, Turkish has been written in a modified version of right-to-left Arabic script before transitioning to left-to-write Latin script. And the earliest Greek inscriptions were written in boustrophedon (alternating left-and-right in each new line.)
I guess my question is: how can the effects of scripts be separated from the structure of the language itself?
Thanks a lot for any help. :)
This video was awesome!
-Yehonathan(4 votes)- Yeah, I reacted to this too, especially as someone who has dyslexia. My first language is english (reading left to right obviously) but when I imagined "girl pushes boy" the girl was standing decidedly to the right, and pushing the boy to the left. Now, does this say something about my language, or just that I'm dyslexic, and flip everything backwards and upside down?
Your early Greek boustrophedon example reminded me of this: Ancient Nordic Runes are each distinct, so that no matter which way you rotate the rune (letter) it means the same sound. (as if p b d q all made the 'puh' sound). You can write them up, down, left or right, and as long as you're consistent, it's entirely readable.
This isn't really an answer, just adding on to what you said. Language is fascinating to me. I LOVE thinking about this stuff.(6 votes)
- Saying that if some cultures don't have words to refer to some things that means they don't know that these things exist is stupid. That would be like saying people who only speak 3 words only know these 3 things. But they actually may know more than just 3 things.
For example I may not know the word to describe a specific shade of blue and the word to describe a slightly lighter shade of blue, but that doesn't mean I can't tell the difference, doesn't mean I don't recognize that these are two different shades of blue.
I.e. Just because some cultures don't have words for some things, doesn't mean they can't recognize them and tell the difference between them.
But language does INFLUENCE thought. But thought is not always governed by language, and language is not always representative of thought.(3 votes)- I just recently read a study saying that those who communicate in different written languages understand each other just as well as those using any other written language. Understanding and communication across languages is equal.
ALSO:
Untranslatables and such are commonplace stumbling blocks for language learners. However, just because there is no word for a certain feeling in our language doesn't exclude the existence of the feeling or the fact that such an emotion is real and can be felt.(1 vote)
- how do babies just get the words in their head when they think a object they know is gone but still exists?(1 vote)
- They've heard the adults use the words before. But when a baby starts off, all of the words it hears are meaningless sounds. Piaget's theory is saying they start understanding and using words they have heard as they start to understand a concept. The baby probably has heard an adult say "all gone" before, but without any context, doesn't use it.(3 votes)
- I know two foreign languages other than English. I speak one a lot better than the other. When I try to speak the language I am worse at, my "better" foreign language comes out. Not all the time, but sometimes it's all that comes to mind especially when I'm searching for a specific word. Is this because my brain groups English separately and my two foreign languages together? Is this common? Because it happens to my sister too, who knows the same two languages with about the same proficiency as me.(1 vote)
- Sometimes, when you learn more than one language, "blocking" happens, meaning that your memory of one language gets in the way of your memory of the other. This is a common flaw in many people's memories. I would look at the Memory videos for further explanation.(1 vote)
- I've got a question somewhat pertaining to this. My lecturer is going over Information Specific and General Domain and discussing modularity theory. He read us the sentence: "Who did Bill believe the rumor that Mary saw," and told us that we knew it sounded wrong but didn't know how. He said that is because it is first held in an information specific domain and then passed onto the working memory. I don't really understand the process here and why this kind of sentence confuses us. I hope I haven't rambled too much..
Also a terrific video! really helped to clarify some things for me :) Thanks(1 vote) - This is a great video, thank you! Where would linguistic relativism fall on this scale?(1 vote)
- There's no such thing called: "The correct way" since these are just our limited recognition on the natural phenomenal and reality. They could all be right to a degree, or completely wrong.(1 vote)
- At, this is not a good example. The writing system (how a language is usually written) is not a feature of the language itself (see tips & thanks for more). 3:35(1 vote)
- As for the Whorf Hypothesis, most modern linguists reject strong linguistic determinism.(1 vote)
- I'm not entirely sure, but would be more willing to dangle in the middle ground on this. I think it's worth looking into, like how does culture and the integration of that culture in a language influence the people and change the ways that a person totally different learns it? I'm certain culture influences that, so maybe a little bit of both. I know that, after learning Japanese extensively, I don't feel comfortable saying "you're welcome" to someone or being thanked is a little awkward now =.= I don't really think we'll know 100% in either case, seeing as people are so different, but there still are similarities between people in a common race that speak a common tongue for extended periods of time in extensive circumstances (circumstances in particular referring to integrated foreigners).(1 vote)
- I tend to accidentally say words in Latin now. And since my sister is learning Spanish sometimes I want to say " un momento", instead of " one moment".(1 vote)
Video transcript
If you've ever learned
another language, then you know that some words
don't translate exactly. For example, there's a
language in New Guinea that only has two words
for color-- mola, meaning "bright," and
mili, meaning "dark." Now compare that to English. We have lots of
words for color-- blue, green, teal,
mauve, all that stuff. But does the fact that we
have different words for color mean that we actually think
about color differently? And your answer to that
question places you on one position of the great
language-thought debate. Which comes first? And we have different
theories that we can place sort of on a spectrum. And on one end, we have
something called universalism. This theory says that thought
comes before language. So your thoughts dictate
the language that develops. So going back to our
New Guinean example, a universalist would say
that that group of people only thinks in terms
of bright and dark, and if they had concepts or
ideas about other colors, then they would
develop words for them in order to express
those thoughts. So with universalism,
we have the idea that thought determines
language completely. And now here, at this
point, we have the idea that thought
influences language. Just a little bit
gentler of a statement. And this is the idea
that Piaget ascribed to. Piaget came up with a theory
of cognitive development in children, and it was because
of this and his observations of children that he
believed that once children were able to think
in a certain way, then they developed the language
to describe those thoughts. So, for example, when children
learn that objects continue to exist even though
they can't see them, that's when they
start to develop words like "gone" and
"missing," "find." So their language
development is influenced by their cognitive development
and their newly-discovered ability to understand
that objects exist, even when they can't
see them anymore. So that's what Piaget thought. And now, a little further down,
towards the more middle ground, we have Vygotsky. And Vygotsky thought that
language and thought are independent, but they
converge through development. So he didn't really say if
language influenced thought or if thought
influenced language. He just said they're both
there, they're both independent, but eventually, you learn to
use them at the same time. Because Vygotsky
believed that children develop language through
social interaction with adults who already
know the language. And through that
interaction, then they learn to connect their
thoughts and the language that they eventually learn. OK, so now we're crossing
over the middle ground into the world that
believes language has an influence on thought. And we have a couple
of positions here, and they both fall
under the category of linguistic determinism. So these are called the weak
and the strong hypotheses. And this isn't a value
judgment on how good they are or how well-established
they are. It just refers to
how much influence they think language
has on thought. So weak linguistic
determinism says that language
influences thought. It makes it easier
or more common for us to think in
certain ways depending on how our language
is structured. So, for example, I'm going
to read you a sentence, and I want you to draw it out
or at least vividly imagine it. "The girl pushes the boy." OK, so however you drew
that out or imagined it, if you drew it this way, with
the girl on the left pushing the boy toward the right, than
your native language probably reads from left to
right, like English. If you drew the girl
pushing the boy this way, with the girl on the right
pushing toward the left, then your native
language might be one that reads from right
to left, like Hebrew. Now, it's not that you
can't or didn't even draw it the other way. It's just that, depending on
how your language is structured, it makes it more
likely or easier for you to think about that
action in a certain direction. Now, strong
linguistic determinism takes a more extreme
view and says that language determines
thought completely. This is also called the
Whorfian hypothesis, because the guy that came up
with it, his name was Whorf. And he observed that there is
a Native American tribe called the Hopi that don't have
any grammatical tense in their language,
and he thought that meant that
they couldn't think about time in the same way. Later, people
studying the language found that the Hopi
have a different way of expressing past,
present, and future. So we don't have an answer yet
for which of these perspectives is the correct one, and people
are still doing research to try to discover which
one is the most accurate. But now you're aware of
the main perspectives on the relationship between
thought and language. And now, when you're
learning a foreign language, you can think about how the
language you're learning is influencing your
thoughts, or vice-versa, how your thoughts are affecting your
interpretation of the language.