Language Entails Linguistic Relativity.
Concepts
Grounded cognition
Language
Linguistic relativity
Journal
Topics in cognitive science
ISSN: 1756-8765
Titre abrégé: Top Cogn Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
revised:
30
03
2023
received:
23
11
2022
accepted:
12
04
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
5
5
2023
entrez:
5
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This commentary addresses the challenge of linking an individual-grounded theory of concepts to a phenomenon that assumes conceptual conventions at population level (linguistic relativity). We distinguish I-concepts (individual, interior, imagistic) from L-concepts (linguistic, labeled, local) and see that quite different causal processes are often conflated under the term "concepts." I argue that the Grounded Cognition Model (GCM) entails linguistic relativity only to the extent that it imports L-concepts into its scope, which it can hardly avoid doing given that practitioners require language to coordinate around their theory and findings. I conclude that what entails linguistic relativity is not the GCM but language itself.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comment
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
683-687Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentOn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Topics in Cognitive Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Cognitive Science Society.
Références
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482-1493.
Brown, R. W. (1958). Words and things. Free Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz, J. J. & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 324-355). Cambridge University Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2022). Language vs. reality: Why language is good for lawyers and bad for scientists. MIT Press.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift Für Philosophie Und Philosoph. Kritik, 100, 25-50.
Hutchins, E., & Hazlehurst, B. (1995). How to Invent a Shared Lexicon: The Emergence of Shared Form-Meaning Mappings in Interaction. In E. Goody (Ed.), Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence (pp. 53-67). Cambridge University Press.
Hurford, J. R. (2003). The neural basis of predicate-argument structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(3), 261-282.
Jackendoff, R. (1989). What is a concept, that a person may grasp it? Mind & Language, 4(1-2), 68-102.
Kemmerer, D. (2023). Grounded cognition entails linguistic relativity: A neglected implication of a major semantic theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15, 615-647.
Malt, B. C. (2020). Words, thoughts, and brains. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5-6), 241-253.