User:Linneasmith/sandbox

ME- Using citation 3 to edit the bias in the second paragraph of the summary and citation 1 (maybe more) for the first paragraph

- Bias used in the Gladstone and Geiger section of "Research before Berlin and Kay (1969)"

ME- Disconnected explanation of linguistic codability in Lenneberg & Roberts of "Research before Berlin and Kay (1969)" that using citations 9 and 10 to expand on. ALSO, that conference talk we watched in class

-Relativist view summary uses biased language

Other sources:

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/19/7780

Changes wanted/needed (Paragraph One)
Take the bias out of it.

"especially"

"'strong version'"/"'weaker version'"

"The concept of linguistic relativity concerns... theories in the this area is linguistic relativity"

Revised
The concept of linguistic relativity concerns the relationship between language and thought, specifically whether language influences thought, and, if so, how. This question has led to research in multiple disciplines—including anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and philosophy. Among the most debated theories in this area of work is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. This states that the language a person speaks will affect the way that this person thinks. The theory varies between two main proposals: that language structure determines how we perceive the world and that language structure influences the world view of speakers of a given language but does not determine it. [1]

Changes wanted/needed (Paragraph Two)
"claims"

"deeply studied"

Revised
There are two formal sides to the color debate, the universalist and the relativist. The universalist side argues that the biology of all human beings is all the same, so the development of color terminology has absolute universal constraints. The relativist side asserts that the variability of color terms cross-linguistically (from language to language) points to more culture-specific phenomena. Because color exhibits both biological and linguistic aspects, it has become a focus of the study of the relationship between language and thought. [3] In a 2006 review of the debate Paul Kay and Terry Regier concluded that "There are universal constraints on color naming, but at the same time, differences in color naming across languages cause differences in color cognition and/or perception." [4]

Original
Lenneberg and Roberts presented their paper The Denotata of Color Terms[9] at the Linguistic Society of America in 1953. In this paper they reported their findings on color recall in Zuni speakers. Zuni has one color term for yellow and orange, and Lenneberg and Roberts' study reported that Zuni speakers encountered greater difficulty in color recall for these colors than English speakers, who have available terms to distinguish them. Brown and Lenneberg attributed this effect to the property of codability.

Linguistic codability is the ease with which people can name things and the effects of naming on cognition and behavior.[10]

Changes wanted/needed
Expand on what linguistic codability is using [10]

Sentence used to describe linguistic codability is plagiarized. Needs to be rewritten

Revision
Linguistic codability is whether naming an object is difficult or not. It also includes a focus on the effect that naming can have on behavior and cognition.

Current Organization
UV:


 * Berlin and Kay 1969
 * Additional UV arguments 1976
 * Gladstone and Geiger 1858 and 1880
 * Lenneberg and Roberts 1953

RV:


 * Saunders 1995
 * Lucy 1997

Recent:


 * Revisions to Berlin and Kay 1999
 * Opposition of Berlin and Kay
 * Wierzbicka 2006
 * Pitchfold and Mullen 2006
 * Levinson 2000
 * If you move this one above the other 2 oppositions it would be more chronological
 * Visual Science 2006