The main aspect that sticks out to me about the readings is how little we understand the cognitive processes that underscore language. According to embodied cognition theories, we have internal simulations that we call up when we read or hear a sentence. These are based on our experiences in the world, and are a less abstract idea than the "prototypes" that Lupyan discusses. Triangles do not exist in the mind as Plato's ideal form that we can perceive simultaneously from all directions, but as a concrete object with a particular orientation. However, as far as I know, cognitive linguists has been mostly focused on the process of decoding meaning, on understanding how a person translates a written word into meaning, and one crucial aspect of Lupyan's article is how humans decode the meaning in a phrase and physically represent that meaning. This additional aspect of producing a representation of individual meaning adds another layer of obfuscation that makes conclusions about the internal cognitive processes difficult, if not impossible.
This ties together with Rickford's entreaty for focused attention in increasing diversity in linguistics and giving back to communities that are studied. If linguistics is not being inclusive as a field, this could have ramifications for the diversity of the field, and the training and opportunities available to all individuals. However, if mental simulations of words is so tangible, then the internal representations of groups of people, such as African Americans, will be shaped by the examples we encounter in the world. Thus, the lack of diversity in linguistics will instill the unconscious representation of linguists as non-African American, and further continue the cycle of exclusion. Also, if the perception of linguistics as a practice of fieldwork that only takes data from communities without giving anything in return, then the field will continue as it has, without providing any service to the communities in question.
Hi Ariana,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post!
I agree with a lot of what you have said, especially about the tangibility of our internal representations of different types of classes like geometric shapes or racial/ethnic groups. The cognitive processes that allow us to recognize members of certain classes and produce representations of certain classes are undoubtedly complex, and they likely involve different neural networks and computations. Gathering the best data not only means gathering a wealth of data, but also data from various perspectives. If social experience plays such a large role in our representations, both researchers and subjects should be of diverse backgrounds.
Your post made me consider how we go about creating change in a field so set in potentially problematic ways. How do we make linguistics a more inclusive, representative field that doesn't contribute to painting negative stereotypes of certain groups without taking actions that skew data?
ReplyDelete