Let us begin with the notion of evolution, change and adaptation, in mind. An individual with only 20 years under their belt has lived long enough to see this in action. Styles, lifestyles, clothing styles, conversational styles are constantly undergoing change. While some individuals seem to be adapting new ways seasonally others remain in the sixties. Individuals undergo these changes and adaptations in an effort to find a way to successfully live in their given society. We find routines that work for us both on an individual level as well as within the greater social context in which we live. As one of these components change (either us or the greater society) we are often challenged to find a new style that will function successfully for both. What does this have to do with the relationship of language and emotion, or the difference in emotional perception across cultures or even genders? As different cultures have evolved due to unique social and environmental challenges, so have the languages, lifestyles, and relationships.
Although approached in different ways, the issues discussed in this weeks readings share a common theme— the linguistic and cultural impact on the expression and perception of emotions. The issue of cultural impact on emotion and even communication in general is incredibly interesting and complex, however, I would like to focus on the relationship between language and emotion. The article, “Language and the Perception of Emotion” evoked a shocking amount of skepticism. In this article, a preliminary attempt to demonstrate a link between emotions and language was described (in repetitive detail). Although their work raises some interesting questions, their results were lacking due to their failure to address important issues.
Based on their interpretation of the results from three studies, the authors confidently provide what they considered to be a worthy demonstration of the impact of language on one’s ability to perceive emotion. In each study the subjects received one of two treatments, they either underwent “semantic satiation” or they were “primed”. By utilizing the technique referred to as “semantic satiation” the investigators were basically able to establish in individuals a temporary fog surrounding a specific word (and possibly the network of words closely associated with the given word). This was accomplished by having a subject repeat a specified word 30 times (in this case the word was associated with an emotion i.e. anger). The control group consisted of those who were “primed”. In order to be primed, one simply had to repeat the specified word three times. I am not sure I understand the purpose of saying the word three times, which presumably does not cause temporary habituation. Would it not be important to have a group that does not recite the word at all prior to the tasks that follow?
Following semantic satiation, the subjects were given different emotion assessment tasks. Some of the tasks required verbal responses and others did not. Those who had undergone semantic satiation seemed slightly less effective in identifying emotions regardless of whether a verbal response was required. (It would have been interesting to so see the responses to ambiguous/neutral faces.) According to the authors, “…our findings demonstrate that language influences people’s ability to perceive emotion, even when a perceptual task does not require the explicit use of language.” (134) Such a conclusion seems too far-reaching and inappropriate based on their data. Although there is an apparent correlation between semantic satiation and emotional perception, any conclusion beyond this (such as cause and effect) is not substantiated by their data.
How else might one interpret these results? The authors acknowledge that through semantic satiation the network of words one may associate with the given word may also become temporarily less accessible (or habituated?). The human body is thronged with complex networks communicating with each other on a multitude of levels. With this in mind one must consider the possibility that when one pathway is disrupted by temporarily inhibiting language (via semantic satiation) other relevant processes may also have been affected. Perhaps language was not the only thing satiated. Was anything else compromised in this process? Is there a way to measure other areas that may have been affected or controls that could be used to prevent the satiation of other devices we rely on to interpret and communicate emotion? It seems that there are a number of variables at play that have yet to be identified (or overlooked) by the researchers.
Another issue that warrants consideration is the nature of “semantic satiation”. The described results of this process may seem counterintuitive. It is interesting that by stressing a word an individual is less effective in assessing the presence of the corresponding condition, rather than hyper aware of the specific state. Isn’t repetition a valuable way of learning?
Ultimately this is an interesting study, but there is a major gap between the construct of what they are measuring and what they are trying to prove/what happens in real life. Although they may have demonstrated a correlation between language and emotional perception, they provide insufficient data to explain cause and effect. They do raise a number of interesting questions for future consideration. Do their findings have any real life applications at this time?
Further questions:
-Does this imply that we have become habituated to or unaware of highly common behaviors or emotions in our environments? (a more permanent satiation process)
-What if in addition to repeating a word they invoked specific emotional states, how would that have affected their interpretation of emotion? SATIATION CAUSES DISINTEREST, EMOTION GETS INTEREST
-The words that were satiated were among the basic emotion vocabulary. Although I disagree with the authors in terms of the meaningful relevance of these studies to the link between language and emotions, it would be interesting to semantically satiate a word that is associated with a specific emotion. For instance if someone was afraid of snakes and they repeated the word snake thirty times would you observe similar results to the individual that recited the word fear thirty times?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I liked the "language and the perception of emotion" article as in its introduction it reminded me of experiences I had abroad while trying to learn a new language. I remember relying on the ability to read peoples faces, body language and tone of voice in order to understand the situation I was in. As I learned the language more and more I was aware of how much I had missed because I could not understand the language, and even when I understood the language often asked for clarification in what they meant because of cultural barriers. I wonder still if a language influences a culture or a culture influences the language. Does not having a word for "amea" affect the American stereotype of autonomy and prideful independence? Is there such an emotional difference between the east and west, north and south or are we letting these physical barriers become biological barriers.
My response to the article on “Language and the Perception of Emotion” was much like Lia’s. I found it interesting but frustrating. The lack of contextualization left me appreciating authors of other articles who clearly articulate what they draw from their findings, what questions their study leaves unanswered and what might be addressed next. Lia and Naomi’s point that the study lacked a true control group is also a good point.
Like others, I am unclear how the observations made in the article relate to real experience. Also, I am confused about whether the technique of saturation was used in the study solely because the researchers saw it as a valid technique for observing the link between language and emotion processing or because researchers thought saturation had any correlation to real life situations (I lean toward the first case scenario.) And what does it mean that there was evidence for both the category-based hypothesis and the spreading-activation hypothesis? Did individuals tend to stick to one style of processing or did they somehow evidence both?
Yeah, that study was pretty bad for lots of reasons that were already mentioned. I just don't see the relevance of the connection that they established, if any, between language and emotional perception. In the lit review it's fairly explicit that language influences the categorization of colors (visual perception). It's also clear that language influences the categorization of emotions, but to say that it influences emotional perception is a whole other issue to which they attend rather inadequately. Does semantic satiation even qualify as language? Despite the conjecture in the general discussion section, I think satiation is a form of interference, and it also is far removed from the normal language used to describe emotions. The parts of the brain that hold semantic knowledge may be activated during emotional processing, but my guess is these only serve for the description of the perceived emotion, not for the overall dimensional affect.
Like Lia, I found the "Language and the Perception of Emotion" article to be of interest. I was also confused about the the necessity of repeating the specified word three times. What was the purpose of that? Wouldn't the overall results be the same if the non-habituated "primed" group didn't say the word at all?
Post a Comment