BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Culture\, language and cognition: a methodological and theoretical
  exploration with reference to spatial concepts - Chris Sinha (University 
 of Hunan\, University of East Anglia)
DTSTART:20201015T153000Z
DTEND:20201015T170000Z
UID:TALK152779@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:96469
DESCRIPTION:Registration Link: https://forms.gle/vNoixT5eqCt5GaVo7 \n\nPar
 t 1: Interdisciplinarity\, multiple methods and reflexivity in the cultura
 l linguistic laboratory\n\nCultural and linguistic variation can be seen a
 s providing “natural laboratory” environments for investigating both v
 ariation and constraints on variation in the human mind\, human developmen
 t and human natural languages. The methodological ideal is often to employ
  converging methods to attack the same problem. Field investigators thus b
 orrow ethnographic methods from anthropology\, and experimental methods fr
 om psychology. However\, it also has to be recognized that the use of conv
 erging methods\, although powerful and often highly productive\, can also 
 lead to problems of “uneasy fit”. Not only do some proponents of quant
 itative methods denigrate qualitative methods (and\, rather less frequentl
 y\, vice-versa)\; but also converging methods may actually produce divergi
 ng (and puzzling) results. Part of the problem is that the very notion of 
 replicability in experimental method is antithetical to cultural comparati
 ve field research. The “same” experimentally controlled situation (mat
 erials\, instructions\, procedures) will have different meanings in differ
 ent cultural contexts. The recognition of this by cultural developmental p
 sychologists in the 1970s prompted the methodological call by Michael Cole
  and others for ecological validity\, and the recognition that experiments
  are social encounters\, not scientific “neutral ground”. I argue that
  “taking experiments to the field” requires a reflexive stance on the 
 part of the researcher in just the same way as does the use of qualitative
  methodologies. In the following part\, I explore these vexed questions of
  methodology\, validity and generalizability with reference to my own and 
 my colleagues’ work.\n\nPart 2: Extended embodiment\, culture and the co
 nceptualization of space\n\nIn this part\, I explore the notion of extende
 d embodiment and its consequences for our understanding of the conceptuali
 zation of space. Embodiment extends beyond the corporeal human body\, enco
 mpassing the humanly made world of cultural artefacts\, amongst which shou
 ld be counted language itself (Sinha 2015). Language and other artefacts a
 re the bearers of human cultures\, and broadening the scope of embodiment 
 theory “beyond the skin” reinforces the cultural dimension of cognitiv
 e linguistic theories. I build upon my cross-linguistic and cultural compa
 rative research into the cognitive and linguistic domain of space (and in 
 particular the development of spatial language and cognition) to demonstra
 te how extended embodiment integrates cognitive and cultural perspectives 
 in linguistics and cognitive science (Sinha and Jensen de López 2000).
LOCATION:Online
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR