NOTES FOR 3.4C LANGUAGE AND BRAIN 🧠
Erasmus University Rotterdam
by Mihaela Masic
January 2025
includes following articles:
, 💭
Language and Thought
Peggy Li, Lila Gleitman: Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning
answer to previous study done by Levinson et al. (see 1.1 below)
1. Introduction
accepted perspective: linguistic categories connect directly to preexisting conceptual frameworks which are
biologically innate to humans
would explain similarities in grammar and lexicons across languages
HOWEVER differences in languages pose questions:
do linguistic differences lead to differences in thought processes?
do linguistic differences lead to differences in categorization and reasoning?
WHORF AND SAPIR support the view that language shapes thought:
Human beings do not live in the objective Language and culture are constantly
world alone, nor alone in the world of influencing each other. But in this
social activity as ordinarily understood, partnership the nature of the language is
but are very much at the mercy of the the factor that limits free plasticity and
particular language which has become rigidifies channels of development in the
the medium of expression ... the “real more autocratic way (Whorf)
world” is to a large extent unconsciously
These ideas lost popularity in the mid 20th century but
built up on the language habits of the are gaining popularity again!
group (E. Sapir)
❓ Do the differences in how people talk create differences in how they think?
💭 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, refers to the idea that the language a person speaks can influence their
worldview, thought, and even how they experience and understand the world
Language and Thought 1
, 1.1. Cross-linguistically varying spatial categories
allocentric descriptors/absolute: egocentric descriptors/relative:
locations relative to landmarks or coordinates outside locations relative to the viewer himself, body-
the observer eg. front of the house, east/west centered eg. left/right
some languages either lack body-centered spatial terminology or restrict its use
differences in how spatial reasoning aligns with linguistic practices:
eg. Tzeltal speakers (absolute language) remember object locations using cardinal directions, while
Dutch speakers (relative language) rely on egocentric terms
Standardized tests like the Man and Tree test elicited spatial descriptions across languages, revealing
distinct linguistic preferences for absolute, relative, or mixed strategies
PREVIOUS STUDY by Levinson: Animals in a Row Test
Each language population was tested in natural social and geographical environments:
Tenejapan population: Tested outdoors on a hill Dutch population: Tested indoors in a laboratory
near a rectangular house. setting
Procedure:
subjects memorize the positions of three animals sorted in a line
animals are then removed from view
brief delay and then subjects are turned around (180 degrees) or escorted to another table oriented
differently
asked to position the animals “in the same way as before”
speakers of
relative languages
solved the task
relatively and vice
versa
Dutch = relative
Tenejapan
Mayan =
absolute
relative
absolute
so the Tenejapan speakers (absolute) consistently rearrange the animals so that after rotation they are
facing in the same cardinal direction
eg. if the fish pointed north before it will point north again
and the Dutch speakers (relative) rearrange the animals to face the same relative direction to the
participant
eg. if the fish was facing left before the rotation, it will be placed to face left after the rotation
1.2. Summary and Question
Language and Thought 2
, ❗ terminological distinction among languages influences spatial reasoning (egocentric vs.
allocentric)
❓Key questions:
does language type shape spatial reasoning? (as suggested in the study by Levinson)
oooor does spatial reasoning shape linguistic structures?
oooor is there a third variable explaining the linguistic and spatial reasoning structures
🧪To test causality:
we could either change the language in a group while keeping cultural setting constant
we could change the cultural setting while keeping the language constant
example: if Eskimo speakers (who use many different snow terms) switched to English, would they
loose their ability to distinguish snow types?
📝Plan:
Study whether spatial reasoning (egocentric vs. allocentric) shifts in English speakers when problem-
solving environments are altered.
Compare results with prelinguistic humans and animals to identify universal factors in spatial reasoning.
2. Spatial reasoning in varying frames of reference: an experimental review
Subjects: Monolingual, native-English-speaking undergraduates from the University of Pennsylvania
2.1. Experiment 1: typological classification: the Man and Tree test
🤷🏻♀️ why? To confirm English speakers’ spatial descriptions align with the relative language
group identified in previous studies
Subjects: Eight English-speaking participants (four pairs) were tested
Director: Describes the position of objects in photos.
Matcher: Identifies matching photos based on the Director’s descriptions.
Man and Tree Test:
2 ppl side by side (Director and Matcher), both have same photos but they are arranged differently for each
person, pics show objects like a girl and an umbrella in diff positions
Director describes a photo —> girl is to the left of the umbrella, matcher listens and finds photo in their own
set
Spatial language was analyzed, focusing on relative, intrinsic, and absolute descriptions
Results:
Relative responses (e.g., "girl to the left of the umbrella"): 82%
Intrinsic responses (e.g., "girl facing umbrella"): 18%
Absolute responses (e.g., "girl to the north of umbrella"): 0%
Language and Thought 3
Erasmus University Rotterdam
by Mihaela Masic
January 2025
includes following articles:
, 💭
Language and Thought
Peggy Li, Lila Gleitman: Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning
answer to previous study done by Levinson et al. (see 1.1 below)
1. Introduction
accepted perspective: linguistic categories connect directly to preexisting conceptual frameworks which are
biologically innate to humans
would explain similarities in grammar and lexicons across languages
HOWEVER differences in languages pose questions:
do linguistic differences lead to differences in thought processes?
do linguistic differences lead to differences in categorization and reasoning?
WHORF AND SAPIR support the view that language shapes thought:
Human beings do not live in the objective Language and culture are constantly
world alone, nor alone in the world of influencing each other. But in this
social activity as ordinarily understood, partnership the nature of the language is
but are very much at the mercy of the the factor that limits free plasticity and
particular language which has become rigidifies channels of development in the
the medium of expression ... the “real more autocratic way (Whorf)
world” is to a large extent unconsciously
These ideas lost popularity in the mid 20th century but
built up on the language habits of the are gaining popularity again!
group (E. Sapir)
❓ Do the differences in how people talk create differences in how they think?
💭 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, refers to the idea that the language a person speaks can influence their
worldview, thought, and even how they experience and understand the world
Language and Thought 1
, 1.1. Cross-linguistically varying spatial categories
allocentric descriptors/absolute: egocentric descriptors/relative:
locations relative to landmarks or coordinates outside locations relative to the viewer himself, body-
the observer eg. front of the house, east/west centered eg. left/right
some languages either lack body-centered spatial terminology or restrict its use
differences in how spatial reasoning aligns with linguistic practices:
eg. Tzeltal speakers (absolute language) remember object locations using cardinal directions, while
Dutch speakers (relative language) rely on egocentric terms
Standardized tests like the Man and Tree test elicited spatial descriptions across languages, revealing
distinct linguistic preferences for absolute, relative, or mixed strategies
PREVIOUS STUDY by Levinson: Animals in a Row Test
Each language population was tested in natural social and geographical environments:
Tenejapan population: Tested outdoors on a hill Dutch population: Tested indoors in a laboratory
near a rectangular house. setting
Procedure:
subjects memorize the positions of three animals sorted in a line
animals are then removed from view
brief delay and then subjects are turned around (180 degrees) or escorted to another table oriented
differently
asked to position the animals “in the same way as before”
speakers of
relative languages
solved the task
relatively and vice
versa
Dutch = relative
Tenejapan
Mayan =
absolute
relative
absolute
so the Tenejapan speakers (absolute) consistently rearrange the animals so that after rotation they are
facing in the same cardinal direction
eg. if the fish pointed north before it will point north again
and the Dutch speakers (relative) rearrange the animals to face the same relative direction to the
participant
eg. if the fish was facing left before the rotation, it will be placed to face left after the rotation
1.2. Summary and Question
Language and Thought 2
, ❗ terminological distinction among languages influences spatial reasoning (egocentric vs.
allocentric)
❓Key questions:
does language type shape spatial reasoning? (as suggested in the study by Levinson)
oooor does spatial reasoning shape linguistic structures?
oooor is there a third variable explaining the linguistic and spatial reasoning structures
🧪To test causality:
we could either change the language in a group while keeping cultural setting constant
we could change the cultural setting while keeping the language constant
example: if Eskimo speakers (who use many different snow terms) switched to English, would they
loose their ability to distinguish snow types?
📝Plan:
Study whether spatial reasoning (egocentric vs. allocentric) shifts in English speakers when problem-
solving environments are altered.
Compare results with prelinguistic humans and animals to identify universal factors in spatial reasoning.
2. Spatial reasoning in varying frames of reference: an experimental review
Subjects: Monolingual, native-English-speaking undergraduates from the University of Pennsylvania
2.1. Experiment 1: typological classification: the Man and Tree test
🤷🏻♀️ why? To confirm English speakers’ spatial descriptions align with the relative language
group identified in previous studies
Subjects: Eight English-speaking participants (four pairs) were tested
Director: Describes the position of objects in photos.
Matcher: Identifies matching photos based on the Director’s descriptions.
Man and Tree Test:
2 ppl side by side (Director and Matcher), both have same photos but they are arranged differently for each
person, pics show objects like a girl and an umbrella in diff positions
Director describes a photo —> girl is to the left of the umbrella, matcher listens and finds photo in their own
set
Spatial language was analyzed, focusing on relative, intrinsic, and absolute descriptions
Results:
Relative responses (e.g., "girl to the left of the umbrella"): 82%
Intrinsic responses (e.g., "girl facing umbrella"): 18%
Absolute responses (e.g., "girl to the north of umbrella"): 0%
Language and Thought 3
