Page 112 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

Language and Mind
learning is possible.) Hayes and Broadbent (1988) trained subjects on these tasks and then unexpectedly changed the equations determining the computer's output. Subjects who had learnt in S-mode coped with the transfer better than subjects who had learnt in U- mode. The experiment was repeated with different subjects who in addition were required to generate a 'random' sequence of digits while carrying out the interaction with the computer. In this experiment U- mode subjects adjusted better to the unexpected change in the equation than did S-mode subjects.
The relevance for the present discussion is as follows. S-mode learning involves the use of 'inner speech' in working memory; disrupt the speech by a task involving a verbal component, such as random digit generation, and the learning is disrupted. U- mode learning does not rely on inner speech, and indeed when an unexpected problem is met, such as the change in equation in the computer task, attempts to use inner speech interfere with efficient per- formance; irrelevant concurrent verbal activity actu- ally helps, because this stops interference from inner speech.
Extending the idea of inner speech to nonhumans has obvious risks, but the success of training apes to use language-like symbol systems (sign language, manipulation of plastic tokens) suggests looking at the cognitive benefits such animals derive from language training. On the whole, evidence for language training benefiting ape cognition is slight. In particular, it is difficult to demonstrate differences in cognitive abili- ties before and after training. However, one clear example does exist: Premack (1988) reports an experi- ment in which chimpanzees derived significant benefit from language training when they attempted an anal- ogy task. The key element of the language training was the acquisition of the plastic symbols for 'same' and 'different.' It is tempting to see these same/ different elements as forming a crucial part of ape inner speech which is used to operate on the analogy problem.
7. Conclusion
Successful demonstrations of the influence of language on thought have been confined largely to the lexicon: information is more successfully retained and manipulated in working memory if it is in an articu- latorily compact, and linguistically unmarked, lexical form, and particular lexical items can influence our memories and lead us to make possibly erroneous presuppositions in problem solving and in making judgments. Several of these demonstrations are purely quantitative, for example, the limited capacity of the articulatory loop, and whether the subject is articu- lating or not when attempting a problem. Quali- tative aspects beyond the lexicon, in particular whether grammar influences thought, have not been addressed. An analogy with mathematical thinking
may help: rather than say The area of a square is equal to the length of one of its sides multiplied by itselfy significant compression can be achieved by using the algebraic expression A=s2. If this was all that could be achieved with algebraic notation, a modest quan- titative improvement in notation would have been made. But mathematicians have used this notation to extend knowledge, for example, in expressions for the volume of a cube (V=s3), and even for the volume of an unvisualizable n-dimensional hypercube (V=sn). The notation can also be used to manipulate existing knowledge, for example to derive the length of side of a square of known area (s = Al/2). So the important property of this algebraic notation is not simply that it compresses the represented information, but that it offers ways to operate on and extend this information. The same is undoubtedly true for the relation between language and thought. However, current work has stopped largely at the level of language as a com-
pressing device, and understanding of the richness of language as a representational medium for thought (alluded to by Whorf, but certainly not established by him) remains as yet beyond our grasp.
See also: Concepts; Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
Bibliography
Baddeley A D 1986 Working Memory. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Brown R W, Lenneberg E H 1954 A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49: 454-62
Campbell R N, Smith P T (eds.) 1978 Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language, 2 vols. Plenum Press, New York Carmichael L, Hogan H P, Walter A A 1932An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology 15:73-86
Chomsky N 1966 Cartesian Linguistics.Harper and Row,
New York
Clark H H 1969 Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning.
Psychological Review 76: 387-404
D'Andrade R G 1989 Cultural cognition. In: Posner M I (ed.)
Foundations of Cognitive Science.MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA
Hayes N A, Broadbent D E 1988 Two modes of learning for
interactive tasks. Cognition 28: 249-76
Humboldt W von 1971 Linguistic Variability and Intellectual
Development. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables,
FL
Jespersen O 1922 Language: Its Nature, Development and
Origin. George Allen and Unwin, London Johnson-Laird P N 1983 Mental Models. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge
Kitto J 1989 Gender reference terms: separating the women
from girls. British Journal of Social Psychology 28: 185-
87
Loftus E F, Palmer J P 1974 Reconstruction of automobile
destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior 13: 585-89
Miller G A 1956 The magical number seven, plus or minus
90