|
Invited talks More specifically, the talks will cover the following topics: Mila Vulchanova (Language Acquisition and Language Processing Lab, Department of Modern Languages, NTNU): The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) defines savants as persons with obvious mental retardation who are capable of performing at a remarkably high level in sharply circumscribed areas (for e.g., arithmetic, calendar calculating). Treffert (2000) has therefore described the typical savant in terms of “splinters of genius among a sea of difficulties”- characterized by , “serious mental disabilities …with some “island of genius” that appear in marked, incongruous contrast to overall handicap”. However, the continuum of skills in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is extremely varied, with roughly one out of 10, according to earlier estimates or, recently, one third of, autistic individuals exhibiting exceptional skills in their overall cognitive profile, as measured on standard IQ tests (Treffert 2000, Howlin et al. 2009). In addition, the range of (circumscribed) areas in which savants excel is also varied: from numerical and calendrical savants to individuals who have a talent in art or music. Among savants, linguistically talented individuals are rare, and detailed studies of such individuals are even rarer. The latter scarcity can be attributed, among other things, to difficulties in establishing linguistic talent as such. Biedron & Szczepaniak (2009) observe that there are neither universally adopted criteria for language talent nor sufficient case studies in the literature. Moreover, there are many different ways of approaching and establishing a cognitive profile. Due to these difficulties, each individual case has been investigated in isolation and assessed using different research tools, which compounds the difficulty in drawing general conclusions from the data gathered. Furthermore, case studies do not have the statistical power of group studies. In this talk I present two such case studies from our own research (Vulchanova, Talcott, Vulchanov & Stankova, in preparation) and outline a possible design which can be used, tailored to research on language talent in exceptional individuals.
Dylan Glynn (University of Lund): This talk examines a method for the emprical analysis of the conceptual structure that motivates language and grammar. The usage-based model of language, propounded by Cognitive and Functionalist approaches to language, assumes that grammaticality is relative to frequency of use. Such an understanding of grammar makes it very difficult to falsify claims about language structure made by theoreticians such as Fillmore (1985), Halliday (1985), Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987), or Givón (1995) using traditional linguistic methodology. Firstly, corpus-driven analysis, combined with multivariate confirmatory statistics, offers the means for falsifying hypotheses and testing the validity of inductively derived results. Secondly, multivariate statistics offer a cognitively plausible way of modelling human communication. Thirdly, such quantifiable emprical methods allow us to compare our results with other empirically established fields of research such as psychology and sociology.
Jurgis Skilters (University of Latvia): In my talk I will provide an overview of methodological frameworks and tools in research on semantics in visual perception. I will mainly focus on the minimal semantics generated in visual perception and will critically explore some of the relevant methodological paradigms, primarily emphasizing research with naïve observers. I will discuss different biased and non-biased tasks (e.g., sentence completion tasks, priming experiments, self-report measures). Some remarks regarding the use of semantic differential in research on the attitudes will be explored. My talk will be concluded with a brief discussion of visual categorization and the use of quantitative methods as complementary tools in research of semantics in visual perception.
Mikkel Wallentin (Aarhus University): This talk presents some of the challenges encountered when using fMRI as a tool for investigating language processing.
Kristian Tylén (Aarhus University): - When investigating properties of human meaning making in e.g. perception, language, gesture, or art, we often face the challenge of making proper generalizable observations and analyses of very rich and open-ended human phenomenal experiences. Content Analysis is a method that allows the researcher to treat a qualitative data set (audio recordings of free speech, videos of behavior, gestures etc. or written material) in a systematic fashion to do descriptive or hypothesis-testing statistical analyses. The basic procedure is to have multiple individual coders (optimally naïve to the hypothesis) search for a set of predefined parameters of interest. If the inter-coder reliability (the degree to which the coders agree in assigning a parameter to the data) is above a certain threshold the individual codings can be summarized and made subject of quantitative analyses. This talk will introduce to the basics of content analysis based on a number of case studies.
Gabriela-Alina Sauciuc (Aarhus University): This talk will provide an overview of the types of equivalence to be assessed when conducting cross-cultural research. I will start by first contrasting cross-cultural and comparative research, moving on to defining equivalence and the various assessment strategies available for both quantitative and qualitative research. These strategies will be discussed in terms of research stages – constructs and operationalization, data collection, measurement and processing. The issue of construct equivalence (both conceptual and functional) will be focused upon as an issue which is important per se when conducting cross-linguistic research, but also as a topic where linguist can join multi-disciplinary teams in a variety of projects involving cross-cultural data collection with verbal tools.
|
SEARCH THE SITE Search engine provided by Google.com
CONTACT INFORMATION ADDRESS LINKS
|
Updated October 6, 2010 by jpt. © Center for Semiotics. All rights reserved.