LING 306 Language, Thought and Mind, Spring 2024

Instructor: Prof. Suzanne Kemmer

Instructor Office and Office Hours:  Herring Hall 209. Standing office hour:  W  3:00-4:00pm. Students can also request an ad hoc appointment, to fit their schedules better.  The standing office hour will be in Herring Hall 209, but ad hoc appointments can be in Brochstein Pavilion or other agreed-on location.

Instructor Email Contact: kemmer@rice.edu and via Canvas

Course Meetings: MWF 11:00-11:50am, Herring Hall 125

Class Location/delivery:  In person

 

COURSE OVERVIEW

This course is about the relation of language to human cognition. How does human language in general, and any specific language in particular, interact with cognition and human cognitive processing? 

Several kinds of answers have been offered from the various Cognitive Sciences, for this question, and its more specific variants:  How does language relate to thought?  Do we think in language? If so, what is such a "language of thought" like, given that we cannot hear it or observe it directly?  Is the mind like a computer and language like a computer program? or are there other ways of thinking about language that are better given what we know about the mind?

How does language relate to specific aspects of cognition that have been studied for some time:  perception, attention, and memory?  Are there ways in which language has similarities to these aspects of cognition? What ways is it different? How do these aspects of cognition interact during cognitive processing?

How can we use the study of language to find out about the mind?  (the question most of interest for cognitive scientists).  Conversely, how can we use the study of the mind and/or brain, and all the knowledge we have about it, to shed light on the nature, structure, use, and origin of human language?

A crucial aspect of language is meaning - how does linguistic meaning relate to the way the mind works, and the way the brain works?  Many approaches to language have focused almost entirely on linguistic form - the phonological, morphological and syntactic forms that can be deduced from the physical aspects of language such as sound or visual perception (in the case of signed languages).  In recent years the focus has shifted back to linguistic meaning, after a generation of form-based theories.

The overall approach taken is the idea of embodiment or embodied cognition - how the human body, including sensory perceptions and the properties of the brain, features crucially in human understanding.

The largest question in the course that we will deal with is, what is the nature of human thought? How is it different from other phenomena such as animal cognition, AI, and other hypothetical modes of cognition that are not human?

In this class we will explore these and other questions and issues, starting from the assumption that any hope of understanding the relation of language and mind has to place meaning in the center of investigation.

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES

• Understand the basic questions and issues of the Cognitive Linguistic approach to the study of the relation of language and mind
• Explore some of the methodologies used to find out about how the mind works in relation to language
• Be able to integrate ideas from relevant areas of Cognitive Science so that they shed light on the study of the mind through language
• Learn about some theoretical tools and frameworks and how to apply them to analyze symbolic phenomena, specifically the frameworks of Conceptual Blending Theory, Conceptual Metaphor theory, and Neo-Whorfian analysis
• Be able to think creatively and come up with ways to apply the frameworks studied to topics of interest to you
• Practice presenting ideas in this area of cognitive science, as preparation for delivering conference presentations.
• Practice writing clearly and concisely about the abstract ideas under study, with the aim of improving your writing and thinking 

 

REQUIREMENTS

There are no exams in the course. The requirements are short written essays, presentations, and a short final reflection summarizing the student's major takeaways from the course.

Reading Responses (40%)

10 short essays posted to Canvas in which you think about the reading and pick out some aspect(s) of it to react to and write about: connections with other ideas outside the reading that you know about (other readings or other knowledge from other classes or elsewhere - referenced).  Aim for about 750 words for each response; an essay can be up to 1000 words.  These are graded on a 10-point scale, taking into account understanding of concepts in the reading, making original connections between ideas, and clarity of ideas expressed in writing. Students are expected to read the comments and try to incorporate suggestions into subsequent Reading Responses.

Abstract of one of the presentations (5%)

2 Group Presentations (15% and 20%; total 35%)

Update:  The preference of students is for individual presentations for the second presentation. So we wil do that.

Each presentation is presented by a different group of 2 students (3 in one group if there is an odd number of students).  Each student, therefore, will have two group presentations, on different topics.  (Second presentation will now be an individual presentation.) A given presentation will consist of an analysis of a particular phenomenon using the theoretical and analytical tools introduced in the class and readings: Conceptual Blending Theory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, or Neo-Whorfian analysis. Objects of analysis may be a book, story, film, political cartoon(s), data visualization(s), advertisements (use video clips, pictures for illustrations), or a set of texts, or data from a language or languages (the latter for Neo-Whorfian analyses). The presentations are to be thought of like informal conference presentations, particularly the second presentation which should be presented more like a conference presentation.

Presentations will be 12-15 minutes followed by Q&A, total 20 minutes. For each presentation, a short abstract (about a paragraph) is required, individually written; this is basically a description of what will be presented, like a conference abstract. For the second presentation, a draft of the abstract is submitted before the presentation, then a revision is made taking account of feedback. Uploading of slides for the presentation is also required after the delivery of the presentation (one set of slides per group, for each presentation).

Final reflection paper (10%)

A short paper (ca. 5 pages) reflecting on the student's learning this semester for this class. The paper should draw on the presentations and what the student has learned from them in relation to the main topics of the course. The student can take a point of view about the ideas they have learned about, whether one side or the other of a controversy, or a synthesis; and they may give some ideas about future areas or ways to resolve some question or issues treated in the course. 

Participation (10%). Presence in class; responding to questions or small analytical problems given in class (including those for overnight thought); uploading Reading Responses to the relevant discussion thread; comments on others' Reading Responses.

 

POLICIES FOR ATTENDANCE,  ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

All assignments must be completed for a passing grade. A minimum of 65% is required for a passing grade. Regular attendance is expected. Attendance and contributions in class will be part of the participation score.

Doing the readings by the date on the course schedule (to be published in the first weeks) will make discussion possible and hopefully enjoyable, and you will be able to ask the questions you are most interested in.

The course is small enough to be treated like a discussion seminar, so students will have a chance to affect the progress and depth of coverage of ideas in the course.

 

HONOR CODE

All work submitted for the course is expected to be original with the student. Students are free to talk with one another about the individual assignments up until they begin to write the assignment. Then communication ceases until the papers are handed in. This is so that assignments don't come to resemble each other too much. The essays are expected to be personalized intellectual responses and as such may differ from one another a great deal. Students should not seek out/use earlier student work on the particular readings. It is easier and safer to simply write your own response.  Student Reading Responses can be read by all students after the deadline. They are to be uploaded to the Discussion Thread posted for each assignment. Students can comment on and 'Like' others' Reading Responses within these Discussion Threads.

 

SEQUENCE OF TOPICS

1. What is Meaning?  Traditional answers. Referential Theory of Meaning; Mentalese or a "Language of Thought". The cognitive linguistic answer: Thought is cognitively heterogeneous and not limited to a single symbolic or a language-like system. Meaning in relation to AI.
   
2. The Embodied Simulation theory of meaning (also called Embodied Cognition.)  The importance of the perceptual faculties in cognitive processing.  The grounding of conceptualization in bodily experience.  Bergen Chapters 1-5.  Bergen's answer to the question of the relation of linguistic meaning to cognition is: Language is not separate from the rest of cognition. It is fundamentally connected to perception (through all senses), emotion, memory, and in fact all bodily experience. MEANING of linguistic items, and meaning of language during online processing of language, consists of conceptualizations that incorporate and integrate many aspects of experience simultaneously.
3. Conceptual integration.  Fauconnier and Turner Chapters 1-5  and an excerpt from Chapter 6. The cognitive mechanisms behind blending. Correspondence, Completion, Integration. As with Bergen:  Meaning is more general than language. Linguistic meaning is one mode of conceptualization that integrates information of all kinds, much of it related to sensory experience but by no means limited to it.
4. Metaphor and thought. Abstract thought as embodied via metaphor. Is metaphor just a matter of language? How do we understand metaphor in the light of blending?  (Bergen Ch. 9, connecting with Lakoff video in next unit.)
5. Image schemas: Container schema, Source-Path-Goal, other spatial and functional schemas. Frames and the mind and brain. Relation of image schemas and metaphor (and blending). Categories: prototypes and basic level categories. The nature of color and linguistic categories of color, showing the constructional nature of perception; how languages are alike and how they are different with respect to color categories. Learning, neural binding. Lakoff video. (1.5 hr)
6. Mathematical ideas and conceptual integration. Ways that basic ideas of quantity (e.g. subitization) and arithmetic (addition and subtraction) relate to human cognitive make-up and human experience in the physical world. The 4 grounding metaphors for basic arithmetic, which are metaphorical blends. Ways that more complex mathematical ideas such as zero, commutative and associative properties of arithmetic, multiplication and division originated via particular mappings.  Lakoff and Nuñez, Chapters 1-4.
7. The relation of individual languages to thought. Neo-Whorfian linguistics. Space, Gender, Color.  Last 3 chapters from Guy Deutscher's book. This topic can be used as some source material for the paper. 

 

Extra topics: If time in class, or as relevant readings for presentations/papers:

8. Implications of blending for the evolution of the human species and of language.  Fauconnier and Turner Chapter 9.
9. Lexical blending.  Creation of new words and new concepts via lexical-conceptual integration. Article by Kemmer on Lexical Blends (a type of neologism in English).

CORE READINGS AND VIDEO

The full references for the core course materials are as follows. The specific selected chapters that will be part of the course are given in the Sequence of Topics above.

Bergen, Ben. 2012. Louder than Words. The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.

Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass. Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, George. 2010. Video on Embodied Cognition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYaoAoijdQ

Lakoff, George, and Rafael Nuñez. 2001. Where Mathematics Comes From. How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.

 

ADDITIONAL READINGS and Materials posted on Canvas for class discussion may include:

Papers on blending phenomena in real life; material on infant cognition and language; papers on spatial orientation systems; Life is a Journey and related metaphors; examples of blends, such as Close Moon, data visualizations, political cartoons, etc. See Modules and Pages in Canvas.

Students with Disabilities

If you have a documented disability or other condition that may affect academic performance you should: 1) make sure this documentation is on file with Disability Support Services (Allen Center, Room 111 / adarice@rice.edu / x5841) to determine the accommodations you need; and 2) talk with me to discuss your accommodation needs.

Title IX Responsible Employee Notification
Rice University cares about your well-being and safety. Rice encourages any student who has experienced an incident of harassment, pregnancy discrimination or gender discrimination or relationship, sexual, or other forms interpersonal violence to seek support through The SAFE Office. Students should be aware when seeking support on campus that most employees, including myself, as the instructor/TA, are required by Title IX to disclose all incidents of non-consensual interpersonal behaviors to Title IX professionals on campus who can act to support that student and meet their needs. For more information, please visit safe.rice.edu <http://safe.rice.edu/> or email titleixsupport@rice.edu <mailto:titleixsupport@rice.edu>.