Linguistic Diversity and Cognition 3301-JF2716-2ST
Human language is the most diverse communication system in the animal kingdom. It is estimated that around 7,000 languages are currently used worldwide, differing from one another at every fundamental level of structure: from sounds to morphology, syntax, and semantics. In this course, we will examine this diversity, focusing especially on semantics, and ask how universal and culture-specific factors contribute to shaping meaning in language. We will also explore whether differences in language correspond to differences in thinking—a concept known as linguistic relativity or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. By studying selected domains, such as space, colors, and numbers, we will assess whether and how differences between languages affect core cognitive functions such as perception, memory, and reasoning among language users.
Type of course
Course coordinators
Learning outcomes
Knowledge
Students will be able to:
- K_W01 describe the fundamental differences between languages across selected semantic and grammatical domains
- K_W01 describe variation in cognitive tasks in speakers of diverse languages
- K_W01 critically evaluate the relationship between linguistic and cognitive diversity and evidence for influence of language on thought
Abilities
Students will be able to:
- K_U01 Apply advanced terminology and notions pertinent to cross-linguistic diversity and linguistic relativity research
- K_U04 Analyze and synthesize linguistic and cognitive phenomena in their broader cultural context
- K_U09 Present knowledge in a coherent, precise and linguistically correct manner in English on level C2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, ensuring an appropriate register and form
Social competences
Students will be ready to:
- K_K02 Apply knowledge and skills obtained during the course of studies to undertake lifelong learning, as well as personal and professional development
- K_K03 Take responsibility for performing one’s professional duties, with due respect for the work of others, obey and develop the ethical norms in professional and academic settings related to the disciplines included on the curriculum of English studies
- K_K04 Assess critically one’s own knowledge and skills related to the studies
Assessment criteria
- Written exam (50%)
- The remaining part of the grade (50%) will be based on in-class tasks and activities. Students are expected to (1) prepare summaries of assigned readings and lead discussions, (2) actively engage in class discussions, and (3) present research project ideas on the theme of linguistic relativity. The presentation should include a review of background literature, identification of the research gap, methodology, and the potential effect of the research project.
The maximum number of absences is 3.
Bibliography
Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., & Majid, A. (2022). Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(12), 1153–1170.
Conklin, H. C. (1955). Hanunóo color categories. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11(4), 339–344.
Defina, R. (2016). Do serial verb constructions describe single events? A study of co-speech gestures in Avatime. Language, 92(4), 890–910.
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613–621.
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306(5695), 496–499.
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science, 255(5044), 606–608.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114.
Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 220–229.
Phillips, W., & Boroditsky, L. (2003). Can quirks of grammar affect the way you think? Grammatical gender and object concepts. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 928–933.
Pyers, J. E., & Senghas, A. (2009). Language promotes false-belief understanding: Evidence from learners of a new sign language. Psychological Science, 20(7), 805–812.
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131(1), 125–138.
Additional information
Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system: