COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

System of Symbols

Language is a system of symbols that are used to communicate information and concepts among two or more individuals. Language is also used for venting emotions, joke telling, and social greeting. Humans use language along with other images for thinking.

Language uses both mental and external representations and images of objects or events. An author communicates with a reader using the symbols of letters and words to get across ideas. In conversation, the speaker and listener exchange mental representations using spoken rather than written symbols. Languages share four rudimentary properties. 

1. A language could be learned by children. 

2. It must be able to be spoken and understood readily by adults.

3. It must capture the ideas that people normally communicate.

4. It must enable communication among groups of people in a social cultural context.

The Essence of Language

Reef Knot

Some factual knowledge is very difficult to convey with language. For example, try describing to a friend what a spiral is, without resorting to gestures or drawing a diagram. Or, try instructing someone, in words alone, how to tie a reef knot. 

Such visual-spatial knowledge is not easily conveyed in words alone. 

The essence of language is the use of symbols to convey meaning. Humans use words, or patterns of sound, to refer to objects, events, beliefs, desires, feelings, and intentions.  The words carry meanings. If our friend says he is happy, then you interpret this to mean something about his emotional state. If instead of speaking, your friend whistles a tune, than his behaviour may say something about his emotional state, but it is less meaningful. Your friend might whistle by habit or whistle when he is angry, sad, or happy. Unlike speech whistling is not specialized to convey a clear meaning.

Words Are Arbitrary

The words used by humans lack any connection between the symbols and the meaning they carry and so differ across languages. “Uno”, “ein”, “onnu” and “one” are arbitrary sounds referring to the same numerical concept. A single scratch in the dirt or mark on a clay tablet would be a nonarbitrary way of referring to the number one.  Ten such marks would nonarbitrarily refer to ten. But the use of nonarbitrary symbols can get very cumbersome. For example to convey the number 100 one hundred scratches have to be marked.  The invention of Arabic numerals for representing numerical qualities vastly simplified the task of representing, say, 543 cups of tea. Another specialism of the language is that by putting together strings of words in different orders, one can express a very large number of different meanings.

Origins of Language

Linguists have restructured early languages by studying the relationships among the written records of ancient languages dating back about 5000 years. It is presumed that the early languages existed 10,000 years ago. A long debated idea on the origin of language claims that it developed from gestures. Jean Aitchison, Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford, says that language and gestures may well have evolved together.  When our ancestors first began to communicate their thoughts to other individuals, they needed a way to refer to specific objects and to relate those objects. It is known that gestures are synchronized in time with oral statements to convey meaning. Spoken words and gestures are synchronized even in congenitally blind individuals who have never seen anyone gesturing.  It could that gestural and spoken output developed in tandem.

Another argument is that language evolved as a consequence of the larger brain of humans. This is tying the horse behind the cart.  A plausible alternative is that language and large brain emerged more or less simultaneously.  As our ancestors lived together in increasingly larger groups, the degree of social interaction increased. Deception possibly became more important, in order to gain an advantage in getting the food, water, and shelter needed for survival. These kinds of social forces may have selected for slightly larger brain but at the same time selected for increased means of communication. Thus, language and brain size may have fed off each other in evolution. Increasingly sophisticated means of communication demanded increasingly complex brain structures. Internet may bring about subtle changes in the human brain. 

Deja Vu Blogfest Cognitive Therapy for Writers

Today is the Deja Vu Blogfest! Hosted by DL Hammons, Lydia Kang, Nicole Ducleroir, and Katie Mills (Creepy Query Girl), this one's all about a post-gone-by. Here's mine. I originally posted it about a year ago, near the end of December. It was actually the second in a two-post series called "Cognitive Therapy for Writers." The first is here. This one's all about how to conquer those thoughts that get you down ...


Raaaawr! All right. So, we've established that everyone has a Sneaky Brain, the part of you that whispers all sorts of nasty things that make you feel bad.

 You know, like:

• If I don't get an agent or get published, I freaking suck as a writer.
• Because that agent/editor rejected me, I am a failure.
• I got a few rejections this week/today/in the last hour, so that means no one will ever want to represent/publish me.
• I wrote one book/chapter/page/sentence, and now I can't think of what to write next. I've run out of words FOREVAH!!!!! AAAAAAH!!!!!!!

Let's pause right here and acknowledge that not everyone who writes is going to end up a published author. That's the way it is. Language is powerful, but it can be difficult to wield. The art of storytelling adds another level of difficulty. And then there's marketability ... whoa.

SO, taking into account that I, or you, might be among those who reach as far as we can but still can't close our hands around that elusive prize, how do we keep feeling OK? How do we keep our Sneaky Brains from sapping us of whatever talent and energy and creativity we have? How do we stay on track and keep writing, keep telling the stories we want to tell?

We all have Smart Brains, too. We should use them.

Don't be afraid to fight dirty.

 1. Recognize those sneaky thoughts. Listen hard. You have to HEAR and recognize what Sneaky's saying, because those thoughts can become pretty automatic over time, meaning you stop hearing them and just skip straight to the drinking-Wild-Turkey part of the equation. Don't. Listen. What do you hear?

If you hear any of the following words, perk up and slap on those boxing gloves:

ALWAYS
NEVER
SHOULD
ONLY
FOREVER

If you find yourself thinking "sure, I had some success a year/month/day/hour ago, but THAT DOESN'T COUNT ... ", do some pushups, man, because you've got some work to do.


Or if you hear "since she rejected me, that means EVERYONE will", strap on some brass knuckles. You've got a fight on your hands.

After you've recognized what the Sneaky Brain is saying ...


Just like this dude.
But probably not as ripped.



2. Recognize Sneaky as a bully. Sure, it's inside your brain, but that don't mean it speaks the truth. When I work with kids, we "externalize the problem". Picture me (see stick figure above) talking in funny voices with puppets strapped on my 18-inch fingers.



 OK, don't. Instead, picture Sneaky sitting in front of you--and see what a liar it is. Those things it's whispering are a one-way ticket to depression. Despair. Giving up. What right does it have to do that to you? What right does ANYONE HAVE TO DO THAT TO YOU?!? I don't care if the bully resides between your ears. It's still a bully.

Once you recognize that:

3. Confront the bully and talk back to it. Logic is not its friend. If someone's done something to upset you, like they rejected you or gave you a bit of harsh feedback, and your Sneaky Brain is saying "it's because they hate your writing and think you're a tool", use your Smart Brain to say, "Really? 'Cuz

1. they only read a tiny sample of my writing--or only a query, or
2. they had some nice things to say, too, or
3. I got a request/compliment, etc. from this same person/similarly skilled person(s) before, or
4. they probably spent a total of 60 seconds looking at it because they had 300 other queries waiting, or
5. the idea probably just didn't float their boat, but it could float other boats ...

You get the point. Use your Smart Brain to be ... smart? Use logic. Be a skeptic. If the Sneaky Brain says you're a failure because you got one rejection, I mean, WTF? Really? How many agents and editors are out there?

If it says "you should have an agent by now" or "you always mess this up" or "you will never ..." Oh, geez. What does it know? This process is frustrating enough without Sneaky going to illogical extremes. Use your Smart Brain to question how the things it says could possibly be true. If you can't, that just means your Smart Brain's out of shape, NOT that Sneaky speaks the truth.

And if it whispers "the only way to be successful and happy is to get published," your Smart Brain should be screaming, "I am more than a writer. And there are many kinds of writers. And I write for many reasons. And sometimes, the end result isn't what it's about. Sometimes, it's the JOURNEY." Then, maybe toss out some obscene hand gestures for good measure. Stupid Sneaky Brain. Gut it with a spoon, my friends. That's what it deserves.

You don't have to be the only one who talks back to Sneaky. I'll bet you have friends or family or beta-readers or intriguing-strangers-you-meet-in-a-coffee-shop who can help you. Listen to their encouragement and don't discount it. But know this: no voice will ever pack a punch as powerful as your own Smart Brain.

So ... confession time. I'll be going on submission sometime in the new year*. And you know what? I'm going to be using every single one of these strategies every single day to stay calm and sane and happy. I know it won't always be easy. I know my Smart Brain won't win every round. BUT, I also know my Smart Brain is pretty damn smart. No matter what happens, I'm going to be OK. I'm going to be successful. And I'm going to define what that means for myself--I won't let anyone, including my own Sneaky Brain, define it for me.

That shapeless lump is my vanquished Sneaky Brain.

What about you? What challenge are you facing now? What's that Sneaky Brain telling you? And just how do you plan to kick its a$$??

*HEY! Guess what? I lived through it! Sane (for the most part)! And still happy, still writing, still looking forward to whatever comes next.

MENTAL TENSION CAUSED BY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Mr. S., a member of the Indian Communist Party came to the deaddiction centre to get admitted for the treatment of alcoholism. He told me that he was drinking alcohol very secretly because his party was against drinking and he wanted to get rid of addiction. He admitted to his feeling of guilt and was visibly depressed evidently due to a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance.

Leon Festinger’s contribution

Leon Festinger

Cognitive dissonance is a mental condition characterized by feeling of discomfort arising from holding conflicting ideas, beliefs, and values simultaneously. The people suffering from this discomfort have a motivational drive to reduce the mental tension arising from the cognitive dissonance by changing the existing cognitions (ideas, beliefs, and values) or adding new ones to create a no-conflicting belief system in their mind. The phrase was coined by the American social psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989) in his 1956 book titled When Prophecy Fails. This notable book chronicled the followers of a UFO Religion in the USA.

UFO religion is an informal term used to describe a group of people who believe the unidentified objects (UFO) come to earth carrying extraterrestrial (ET) beings that are interested in the well being of humanity. For the followers of UFO religion the ET beings are more akin to angels than physical aliens. They also believed in an impending apocalypse.

Leon Festinger and associates infiltrated a religious group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that date passed without the world ending, the movement did not disband. Instead, the group came to believe that they had been spared in order to spread their teachings to others, a justification that resolved the conflict between their previous expectations and reality.

Cognitive dissonance in daily life

In daily life, smoking is a common example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, and smokers must reconcile their habit with the desire to live long and healthy lives. In terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be reduced by any number of changes in cognitions and behaviors. Some may try hard to quit smoke. Those who fail in their attempt to quit smoking may rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else will. This case of cognitive dissonance could also be interpreted in terms of a threat to the self-concept of the individual. He may believe: “I am a smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions.”  When he smokes the thought may arise: “I am increasing my risk of lung cancer.” This thought can be dissonant with self-related belief. It is often easier to make excuses or pass judgments that it is to change behaviour or values. Cognitive dissonance research contributes to the abundance of evidence in social psychology that humans are not always rational beings.

Cognitive dissonance distorts perception

Researchers have found that cognitive dissonance can affect a variety of human judgments, from estimates of statistical likelihood to social assessments, to self-image. Social psychologists Emily Balcetis and David Dunning have established that cognitive dissonance can affect the human perceptual system. The researchers asked the students who participated in the experiment to walk through the campus to cover a specific distance with an unappealing way to estimate themselves the distance they have covered. In this experiment the distance across a university quadrangle was to be covered by walking. They asked students to walk that distance, in full daylight, while dressed as Carmen Miranda: wearing a grass skirt, a coconut brassiere, and, of course, a giant fruit-laden headdress. Carmen Miranda is probably best-known today as the former spokesperson for Chiquita bananas, but she was equally famous as an actress, singer, and dancer in the 1940s and 1950s.

The key to the study was the students' belief that they had chosen to do this. Some of the students were simply told that they were participating in an experiment about their reaction embarrassment and then told to put on the costume and walk across the quadrangle, after which they'd be quizzed about their reaction. Others were told they could either do the Carmen Miranda walk or some other (unnamed) embarrassing task. However, they were strongly encouraged to dress up in the fruity hat, and in fact, none of them chose the other task.

The students who believed they chose to dress up as Carmen Miranda estimated the length of the quadrangle as significantly shorter than those who were simply told to wear the costume. Another group of students was simply asked to estimate and walk the distance without the costume, and again, they believed the distance was significantly longer than those who thought they had chosen to wear the costume. Balcetis and Dunning say that this misperception of the distance (the quadrangle was actually 365 feet long) is caused by cognitive dissonance. Since they chose to walk in the costume, these students convinced themselves their decision must be rational: after all, it's not a very long distance to walk. They experienced less cognitive dissonance.

Brain centre for cognitive dissonance

fMRI showing anterior part of Cingulate Gyrus

Imaging studies with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) conducted by the Dutch neurologist Van Veen and his colleagues have established the front portion of the cingulate gyrus of the cerebral cortex is the brain centre of cognitive dissonance.