In his paper The paradox of the universal triangle, Gary Lupyan uses simple triangle-drawing experiments to investigate the way our brains represent concepts and link them to words.  This question is an ongoing debate in science and philosophy, and one theory is that our brains store each concept as a single entity that can be evoked by any description of it.  For example, the concept of a triangle could be called up by ‘triangle,’ ‘three-sided polygon,’ or any other correct description.  If this were the case, then we would expect that asking people to draw triangles or three-sided polygons would yield the same results.  Lupyan performed this experiment, found that prompt wording actually made a big difference – when people were specifically asked to draw ‘triangles’, they drew much more standard figures (almost all subjects drew upwards-pointing equilateral triangles) than when asked to draw ‘three-sided polygons’.  This supports the idea that labels like ‘triangle’ evoke specific perceptual states.  According to this theory, called “simulation,” labels allow us to aggregate many different experiences with specific categories and thereby learn the common characteristics that define the category.  In the case of a triangle, most of these experiences involve equilateral, upward-pointing triangles, so when people access their internal representation of a triangle, that specific standard triangle gets recreated.  Asking people to draw a ‘three sided figure’ activates a different set of experiences and representations, leading to greater variability in the resulting figures.  In addition, Lupyan found that standard-looking triangles were actually recognized faster than atypical ones, reinforcing the idea that people are comparing visual input with an internal triangle representation that reflects the most common types of triangles. 

The connection between classification and language is one of the most interesting parts of Lupyan’s article.  He writes that “language impairments such as aphasia impair categorization in nonverbal contexts” (3).  I would not have expected language and classification to be so deeply related.  If language is necessary for categorization, then does this prevent animals from effectively classifying objects?  Could the need for categorization have driven development of human language? 

In Unequal partnership: Sociolinguistics and the African American speech community, John Rickford discusses how the study of AAVE has advanced linguistics and improved our understanding of the process of grammatical change.  Sadly, AAVE continues to be perceived as ‘less correct’ than SE, leading to discrimination in job interviews, court cases, and other situations.  Rickford discusses multiple ways that linguistics researchers and linguistics programs can help.  For example, he talks about the Industrial Language Training (ILT) program used in the UK, which worked with employers to help modify their negative attitudes towards people with different accents or dialects.  Another key area where linguistics research can be applied is childhood education.  Linguistics experiments have shown that reading instruction where AAVE-speaking students read the same stories in both AAVE and SE can be far more successful than standard lessons.  In one case, the resulting student score increase corresponded to 6.2 months of instruction in just four months.  However, these programs are often misunderstood by the public and face harsh criticism, so they are not widely used.  Hopefully linguistics research will continue to influence public education and lead to better learning outcomes.