Language as a Window into the Mind: The Case of Space Open Access

Abstract

Many cognitive scientists regard language as a rich source of evidence about the human mind. Much research over the past forty years has been driven by the assumption that words reveal underlying concepts. At the same time, cross-linguistic work has shown that languages differ dramatically in how they partition the world by name. To maintain the premise that words align with concepts, this linguistic diversity would have to be mirrored by corresponding conceptual diversity, consistent with the Whorfian hypothesis that language shapes thought. However, a number of recent findings are incompatible with this position: Where languages differ in their word meanings, conceptual differences are often lacking. Such evidence calls into question the notion that words are a direct route to concepts. In this dissertation, I examine how language might serve as a window into the mind despite the lack of alignment between words and concepts. In particular, I propose that similarities in meaning across multiple words, identifiable as cohesive clusters within the semantic structure of a domain, map onto prominent conceptual distinctions. I call this proposal the semantic clusters hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, language is a better reflection of the conceptual system at the level of clusters of words than at the level of words themselves.

A series of five experiments used space as a test bed for investigating the semantic clusters hypothesis. In these experiments, clusters of spatial terms identified through dimensionality reduction analyses of semantic similarity data (Experiment 1) aligned with conceptual distinctions influential in the nonlinguistic processing of spatial relations (Experiments 2-3). Further, clusters that were more differentiated at the semantic level were also more salient at the conceptual level (Experiments 4-5). These findings suggest that despite the failures of individual words to reveal concepts, aspects of semantic structure beyond the level of words may provide an illuminating window into the mind. The contributions of macrosemantics, the approach to meaning exemplified by the present research, are discussed with respect to ongoing debates on the relationship between language and thought.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . 1

1.1 Language as a window into the mind . . . 1
1.2 Words and the world . . . 2
1.3 The problem of linguistic diversity . . . 4
1.4 Dissociations between words and concepts . . . 6
1.5 Why are words a bad window on concepts? . . . 8
1.6 The semantic clusters hypothesis . . . 10
1.6.1 The differentiation principle . . . 12
1.6.2 Testing the hypothesis . . . 14
1.7 Space as a test bed . . . 16
1.7.1 Overview of the dissertation and empirical predictions . . . 16

Chapter 2: Inferring semantic structure . . . 18
2.1 The semantics of space . . . 18
2.2 Dimensionality reduction methods . . . 20
2.3 Experiment 1: Sorting prepositions . . . 23
2.3.1 Method . . . 24
2.3.1.1 Participants . . . 24
2.3.1.2 Materials . . . 24
2.3.1.3 Procedure . . . 25
2.3.2 Results and discussion . . . 26
2.3.2.1 Multidimensional scaling . . . 27
2.3.2.2 K-means clustering . . . 32
2.3.2.3 Hierarchical clustering . . . 34
2.3.2.4 Principal components analysis . . . 36
2.3.2.5 General conclusions . . . 40
2.3.2.6 Correspondence with individual data . . . 41
2.3.2.7 Relative differentiation of the clusters . . . 44
2.4 Summary . . . 46

Chapter 3: Assessing conceptual salience . . . 47
3.1 Interpreting semantic structure . . . 47
3.2 Categorical perception as a diagnostic of conceptual salience . . . 49
3.2.1 Words and CP . . . 50
3.3 Using CP to test the semantic clusters hypothesis . . . 52
3.4 Experiment 2: CP for above-below, left-right, and front-back . . . 53
3.4.1 Method . . . 54
3.4.1.1 Participants . . . 54
3.4.1.2 Materials . . . 55
3.4.1.3 Design and procedure . . . 56
3.4.2 Results and discussion . . . 57
3.4.2.1 Overview of key findings . . . 57
3.4.2.2 Discrimination task . . . 58
3.4.2.3 Picture description task . . . 61
3.4.2.4 Summary and conclusions . . . 61
3.5 Experiment 3: CP for above and below . . . 62
3.5.1 Method . . . 63
3.5.1.1 Participants . . . 63
3.5.1.2 Materials . . . 63
3.5.1.3 Design and procedure . . . 64
3.5.2 Results and discussion . . . 64
3.5.2.1 Overview of key findings . . . 64
3.5.2.2 Discrimination task . . . 65
3.5.2.3 Picture description task . . . 68
3.5.2.4 Summary and conclusions . . . 68
3.6 Experiment 4: CP for above-below vs. CP for above and below . . . 70
3.6.1 Method . . . 71
3.6.1.1 Participants . . . 71
3.6.1.2 Materials . . . 71
3.6.1.3 Design and procedure . . . 72
3.6.2 Results and discussion . . . 73
3.6.2.1 Overview of key findings . . . 73
3.6.2.2 Discrimination task . . . 74
3.6.2.3 Picture description task . . . 78
3.6.2.4 Summary and conclusions . . . 79
3.7 Experiment 5: CP for left-right vs. CP for left and right . . . 80
3.7.1 Method . . . 81
3.7.1.1 Participants . . . 81
3.7.1.2 Materials . . . 81
3.7.1.3 Design and procedure . . . 83
3.7.2 Results and discussion . . . 83
3.7.2.1 Overview of key findings . . . 83
3.7.2.2 Discrimination task . . . 84
3.7.2.3 Picture description task . . . 88
3.7.2.4 Summary and conclusions . . . 88
3.8 Overall summary . . . 89

Chapter 4: General discussion . . . 91
4.1 When language is a window into the mind-and when it isn't . . . 91
4.1.1 Further contributions of the present investigation . . . 92
4.1.2 Limitations and benefits of dimensionality reduction . . . 94
4.2 The inevitable Whorfian question . . . 95
4.3 Extending the differentiation principle . . . 97
4.4 Implications for related areas of research . . . 99
4.4.1 Spatial cognition through the lens of spatial language . . . 99
4.4.2 Categorical perception of spatial relations . . . 101
4.5 In defense of concepts . . . 102

References . . . 104

Appendix . . . 121

About this Dissertation

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Laney Graduate School
Department	Psychology
Degree	PhD
Submission	Dissertation
Language	English
Research Field	Language, Linguistics Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Cognitive
Keyword	concepts semantic structure language and thought categorical perception spatial language word meaning
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Wolff, Phillip, Emory University
Committee Members	Lourenco, Stella, Emory University Barsalou, Lawrence, Emory University Gouzoules, Harold, Emory University Pak, Marjorie, Emory University Namy, Laura, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Language as a Window into the Mind: The Case of Space ()	2018-08-28 10:21:59 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions