Stephen C. Levinson

WEIRD languages have misled us, too [Comment on Henrich et al.]

The linguistic and cognitive sciences have severely underestimated the degree of linguistic diversity in the world. Part of the reason for this is that we have projected assumptions based on English and familiar languages onto the rest. We focus on some distortions this has introduced, especially in the study of semantics.

Language acquisition and conceptual development

Where you can find the language acquisition and conceptual development easily? Is it in the book store? On-line book store? are you sure? Keep in mind that you will find the book in this site. This book is very referred for you because it gives not only the experience but also lesson. The lessons are very valuable to serve for you, thats not about who are reading this language acquisition and conceptual development book. It is about this book that will give wellness for all people from many societies.

Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity

Preface 1. The intellectual background: two millenia of Western ideas about spatial thinking 2. Frames of reference 3. Linguistic diversity 4. Absolute minds: glimpses into two cultures 5. Diversity in mind: methods and results from a cross-linguistic sample 6. Beyond language: frames of reference in wayfinding and pointing 7. Language and thought.

Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation

Informal verbal interaction is the core matrix for human social life. A mechanism for coordinating this basic mode of interaction is a system of turn-taking that regulates who is to speak and when. Yet relatively little is known about how this system varies across cultures. The anthropological literature reports significant cultural differences in the timing of turn-taking in ordinary conversation. We test these claims and show that in fact there are striking universals in the underlying pattern of response latency in conversation. Using a worldwide sample of 10 languages drawn from traditional indigenous communities to major world languages, we show that all of the languages tested provide clear evidence for a general avoidance of overlapping talk and a minimization of silence between conversational turns. In addition, all of the languages show the same factors explaining within-language variation in speed of response. We do, however, find differences across the languages in the average gap between turns, within a range of 250 ms from the cross-language mean. We believe that a natural sensitivity to these tempo differences leads to a subjective perception of dramatic or even fundamental differences as offered in ethnographic reports of conversational style. Our empirical evidence suggests robust human universals in this domain, where local variations are quantitative only, pointing to a single shared infrastructure for language use with likely ethological foundations.

Can language restructure cognition? The case for space

Frames of reference are coordinate systems used to compute and specify the location of objects with respect to other objects. These have long been thought of as innate concepts, built into our neurocognition. However, recent work shows that the use of such frames in language, cognition and gesture varies cross-culturally, and that children can acquire different systems with comparable ease. We argue that language can play a significant role in structuring, or restructuring, a domain as fundamental as spatial cognition. This suggests we need to rethink the relation between the neurocognitive underpinnings of spatial cognition and the concepts we use in everyday thinking, and, more generally, to work out how to account for cross-cultural cognitive diversity in core cognitive domains.

Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization

This project collected linguistic data for spatial relations across a typologically and genetically varied set of languages. In the linguistic analysis, we focus on the ways in which propositions may be functionally equivalent across the linguistic communities while nonetheless representing semantically quite distinctive frames of reference. Running nonlinguistic experiments on subjects from these language communities, we find that a populations cognitive frame of reference correlates with the linguistic frame of reference within the same referential domain.

Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals

Languages vary widely but not without limit. The central goal of linguistics is to describe the diversity of human languages and explain the constraints on that diversity. Generative linguists following Chomsky have claimed that linguistic diversity must be constrained by innate parameters that are set as a child learns a language. In contrast, other linguists following Greenberg have claimed that there are statistical tendencies for co-occurrence of traits reflecting universal systems biases, rather than absolute constraints or parametric variation. Here we use computational phylogenetic methods to address the nature of constraints on linguistic diversity in an evolutionary framework. First, contrary to the generative account of parameter setting, we show that the evolution of only a few word-order features of languages are strongly correlated. Second, contrary to the Greenbergian generalizations, we show that most observed functional dependencies between traits are lineage-specific rather than universal tendencies. These findings support the view that—at least with respect to word order—cultural evolution is the primary factor that determines linguistic structure, with the current state of a linguistic system shaping and constraining future states.

Returning the tables : Language affects spatial reasoning

Li and Gleitman (Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, in press) seek to undermine a large-scale cross-cultural comparison of spatial language and cognition which claims to have demonstrated that language and conceptual coding in the spatial domain covary (see, for example, Space in language and cognition: explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press; Language 74 (1998) 557): the most plausible interpretation is that different languages induce distinct conceptual codings. Arguing against this, Li and Gleitman attempt to show that in an American student population they can obtain any of the relevant conceptual codings just by varying spatial cues, holding language constant. They then argue that our findings are better interpreted in terms of ecologically-induced distinct cognitive styles reflected in language. Linguistic coding, they argue, has no causal effects on non-linguistic thinking--it simply reflects antecedently existing conceptual distinctions. We here show that Li and Gleitman did not make a crucial distinction between frames of spatial reference relevant to our line of research. We report a series of experiments designed to show that they have, as a consequence, misinterpreted the results of their own experiments, which are in fact in line with our hypothesis. Their attempts to reinterpret the large cross-cultural study, and to enlist support from animal and infant studies, fail for the same reasons. We further try to discern exactly what theory drives their presumption that language can have no cognitive efficacy, and conclude that their position is undermined by a wide range of considerations.

Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena

The properties of gaps are intrinsically significant in that the language learner can confront little direct evidence bearing on them, so that it is reasonable to assume that they reflect deeper principles of UG, the biologically determined endowment that will be the primary concern for those interested more in the nature of the human mind than in the arrangement of data in the environment (Chomsky, 1982:19. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding ).

Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity

List of figures List of tables List of contributors Preface 1. The background to the study of the language of space Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins 2. Towards an Arrernte grammar of space David P. Wilkins 3. Sketch of a Jaminjung grammar of space Eva Schultze-Berndt 4. Prolegomenon to a Warrwa grammar of space William B. McGregor 5. The language of space in Yeli Dnye Stephen C. Levinson 6. Prolegomena to a Kilivila grammar of space Gunter Senft 7. A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal Penelope Brown 8. Spatial reference in Yukatek Maya: a survey Jurgen Bohnemeyer and Christel Stolz 9. Approaching space in Tiriyo grammar Sergio Meira 10. Elements of the grammar of space in Ewe Felix K. Ameka and James Essegbey 11. Spatial language in Tamil Eric Pederson 12. A grammar of space in Japanese Sotaro Kita 13. Some properties of spatial description in Dutch Miriam van Staden, Melissa Bowerman and Mariet Verhelst 14. Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins Appendices References Author index Language/language family index Subject index.