Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T01:25:48.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A - Construction of picture stimuli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2010

John A. Lucy
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access

Summary

Basis of the decision to use line drawings

Stimuli used in the picture task series consisted of line drawings of typical Mayan village scenes and included specific numbers and types of objects relevant to the hypothesis in question. Constructed stimuli were used rather than actual village settings because it is very difficult to control the occurrence of objects (especially animate ones) in natural settings and because it is difficult to replicate the same setting across subjects and cultures. Artificial arrangements of objects were not used because it was difficult to include complex contextual features (for example, forest, house interiors), because it was difficult to include effectively many types of objects (for example, smoke, clouds), because pretesting revealed that small replicas of objects evoked unusual responses among the Yucatec subjects (for example, replicas of animals elicited great amusement), and because the practical difficulty of rapidly manipulating arrangements of objects made them difficult to use in some of the nonverbal tasks (for example, recognition memory).

Photographs of artificial arrays of objects would have solved this last problem, but not the others. Photographs of natural settings were rejected in part because they presented some of the same difficulties as the natural settings, especially the difficulty of setting up the situations to photograph so as to include the appropriate objects of interest and to exclude unwanted elements. More importantly, however, in pretesting photographs inevitably evoked too great an interest on the part of the Maya as to the particulars of who was involved, what they were doing, where the photograph was taken, etc. It can be argued that this was a desirable aspect of photographs, better reflecting speakers' actual responses to situations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Grammatical Categories and Cognition
A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
, pp. 162 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×