Resources for Communication Problems

Thursday, January 31, 2008






Lantz and Stefflre (1964) have shown that it is actually not the semantic characteristics of the vocabulary of a natural language that determine the cognitive process recognition but the peculiar use subjects will make of language in a particular situation. Instead of using the information from either Approach A or B (which primarily brings out language peculiarities), they used Approach C which measures the accuracy of communication in a specific setting, without evaluating the words that subjects choose to use; their independent variable was communication accuracy which reflects efficiency of the process but does not specify by what means it is done. This is quite proper in that the bound by the semantics of his natural language; there is little evidence of the tyrannical grip of words on cognition.
When communication accuracy is determined for every color in a specific stimulus array it predicts recognition of that color quite well as may be seen from Fig. 8.7. Codability, on the other hand, predicts recognizability only in special contexts and stimulus arrays. From this we may infer that subjects make use of the ready-made reference facilities offered them through their vocabulary, only under certain circumstances. The rigid or standard use of these words, without creative qualifications, is in many circumstances not conducive to efficient communication. Communication accuracy or efficiency will depend
FIG. 8.7 When communication accuracy is determined for every color in a specific stimulus array, it predicts recognizability of that color in that setting well.(Date for this graph and for those of figs 8.9 and 8.10 based on an as yet unpublished article by DeLee Lantz and E.H.Lenneberg.) frequently on individual ingenuity rather than on the language spoken by the communicator.
The Lantz and Stefflre experiment points to an interesting circumstance. The variable, communication accuracy, is a distinctly social phenomenon. But recognition of colors is an entirely intrapersonal process. Lantz and Stefflre suggest that there are situations in which the individual communicates with himself over time. This is a fruitful way of looking at the experimental results and one that also has important implications regarding human communication in more general terms. It stresses, once again, the probability that human communication is made possible by the identity of cognitive processing within each individual. The social aspect of communication seems to reflect an internal cognitive process. We are tempted to ask now , “What is prior
the social or the internal process? “At present, there is no clear answer to this, but the cognitive functioning of congenitally deaf children, before they have learned to read, write. or lip-read (in short, before they have language)appears to be, by and large, similar enough to their hearing contemporaries to lead me to believe that the internal process is the condition for the social process, although certain influences of the social environment upon intrapersonal cognitive development cannot be denied.
What preliminary conclusions may we draw then from these empirical investigations? Four major facts emerge. First, the semantic structure of a given language only has a mildly biasing effect upon recognition under special circumstance; limitations of vocabulary may be largely overcome by the creative use of descriptive words. Second, a study of the efficiency of communication in a social setting (of healthy individuals) may give clues to intrapersonal processes. Third, efficiency of communication is mostly dependent upon such extra-semantic factors as the number of and perceptual distance between discriminanda. Fourth, the social communication measures become more predictive of the intrapersonal processes as the difficulty of the individual’s task increases either by taxing memory or by reduction of cues (cf. also Frijda and Van de Geer. 1961: Van de Geer, 1960: Glanzerand Clark, 1962; Krauss and Weinheimer. 1965).


Lantz and Stefflre認為在自然語言中並沒有所謂字彙的語意特徵,來決定認知過程,但是在某些特別的情形下可使用一些少見的題材來假設語言。而不是使用Approach A B他們使用Approach C在特殊情況下來測量溝通的正確性,不是採用計算字數。他們所採取溝通的獨立變項,反應出溝通過程的正確性,但並無指出他們所採用是何種測量方式。這是少數的證據可反應出自然語言最恰當的方式。



No comments: