Similarly, Lupyan found
that people draw different types of triangle drawn depending on the instruction
given to them: draw a triangle or draw a three-sided polygon. He finds that
asking people to draw a three-side-polygon is not specific enough for them to
draw the correct idea of a triangle in their mind. So, in this way, we realize
mental representations are context-dependent and specific. If everyone has their own context-dependent
mental representations behind words, how do we communicate the same ideas
across language? Lupyan argues that category names like triangle allow us to achieve
some alignment in mental representations and thus can make communication easier.
However, language is still often
misconstrued and a tool for miscommunication. Rickford, in the reading,
explains the cultural significance of language, particularly African-American Vernacular
English. He establishes the difference between AAVE and Standard English and
discusses how AAVE is predominantly associated with a negative outlook. As a
result, he says, speakers of AAVE are treated with less respect and as inferior
by speakers of Standard English. In this way, language miscommunicates the
African-American culture. Rickford also argues that linguists gather extensive
data from the African-American community but hardly give back to them in a
meaningful way. He states that language should be used to empower the
African-American community and their culture and more African-Americans should
be attracted into the field of linguistics – a field African-Americans are
greatly underrepresented in.
Therefore, I do believe that language is an
extremely powerful tool for communication. But, to quote Spider-Man, “with
great power comes great responsibility.” It is our responsibility to make an
active effort to ensure language does not miscommunicate ideas or is not used
to further stereotypes, in the case of African-American Vernacular English. Rather,
language should be used to understand, embrace and empower the many unique
cultures of the world and all of the cultural differences.
I thought you did a really good job explaining the concepts brought up in these two articles. However, you stated that Lupyan argues that "a true abstraction of a triangle does not exist." To my understanding, however, Lupyan does state that a true abstraction of a triangle exists. For example, he states, "Despite defining triangles as three-sided figures, shapes with three angles, and other abstractions, people's depictions of triangles were highly constrained to those that past work (Lupyan 2013) has shown to the most typical." So, it would seem that he is saying people CAN abstract a triangle, namely, as an entity that has three sides, three angles, etc. But then when they are asked to draw a triangle, i.e., put it in the concrete, people have their own conceptions of what a "correct" triangle is.
ReplyDelete