Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorAdamska, Krystyna
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-14T07:41:54Z
dc.date.available2014-05-14T07:41:54Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn1427-969X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/4495
dc.description.abstractThe paper presents arguments for treating language as a tool for cognition and communications. It articulates an opposite view to the one which considers language as an independent module shaping cognition and thinking. According to the conception of the socially – based cognition the mind is a controller of the adaptive behavior, and communication is a strategic action to which language is subjected. The model of the linguistic categories arranges words according to the level of their abstraction; and a number of research results presented in the paper indicate that there is a relationship between the level of abstraction of the words used and the inference related to events, emotions and memory. Recognizing language as a tool for cognition and communication leads to the acceptance of the necessity to widen the language awareness. This kind of thinking is supported by the presented results of research on the relationship between linguistic categories and the stereotypes, communication of the interpersonal distance and the process of asking questions and giving answers.en
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesActa Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Psychologica; 17
dc.subjectlanguageen
dc.subjectcognitionen
dc.subjectlinguistic categoriesen
dc.subjectstereotypesen
dc.titleJęzyk jako narzędzie poznania i komunikacjipl_PL
dc.title.alternativeThe language as a tool of cognition and communicationen
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.page.number21-37pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationInstytut Psychologii, Uniwersytet Gdańskipl_PL
dc.referencesAdamska, K. (2012). Iluzja transparentności. Przyczyny i skutki. Studia Psychologiczne, 4, 13–25.
dc.referencesAron, A., Aron, E.N., Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
dc.referencesBeukeboom, C.J., Semin, R.G. (2005). Mood and representation of behaviour: The how and why. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1242–1251.
dc.referencesBrown, R., Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237– 273.
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (2000). On nature of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
dc.referencesCoenen, L.H.M., Hedebouw, L., Semin, G.R. (2006). The Linguistic Category Model (LCM). Manual. Free University Amsterdam.
dc.referencesDeCoster, J., Banner, M.J., Smith, E.R., Semin, G.R. (2006). On the inexplicability of the implicit: differences in the information provided by implicit and explicit tests. Social Cognition, 24, 5–21.
dc.referencesDouglas, K.M., Sutton, R.M. (2010). By their words ye shall know them: language abstraction and the likeability of describers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 366–374.
dc.referencesGrabias, S. (2012). Mowa i jej zaburzenia. [W:] S. Grabias, M. Kurkowski (red.), Logopedia. Teoria zaburzeń mowy (s.15–91). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
dc.referencesGrice, P. (1980). Logika a konwersacja. [W:] Język w świetle nauki, (przeł.) B. Stanosz (s. 91–114).Warszawa: Czytelnik.
dc.referencesHabermas, J. (1999). Teoria działania komunikacyjnego, t. 1: Racjonalność działania a racjonal- ność społeczna. Warszawa: PWN.
dc.referencesIJzerman, H., Semin, G.R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations: mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20, 1214–1220.
dc.referencesJiga-Boy, G.M., Clark, A.E., Semin, G.R. (2013). Situating construal level: the function of abstractness and concreteness in social context. Social Cognition, 31, 201–221.
dc.referencesKitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H. (1995). Culture, self, and emotion: A cultural per- spective on ‘self-conscious’ emotions. [W:] J.P. Tangney, K.W. Fischer (red.), Selfconscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride (s. 439–465). New York: Guilford Press.
dc.referencesKitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., Larsen, J.T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures. Psychological Science, 14, 201–207.
dc.referencesKrauss, R.M., Fussel, S.R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. [W:] E.T. Higgins, A.W. Kruglansky (red.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (s.655–701). New York: Guilford.
dc.referencesKurcz, I. (2000). Psychologia języka i komunikacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
dc.referencesKurcz, I. (2011). Charakterystyka kompetencji językowej – reprezentacje umysłowe. [W:] I. Kurcz, H. Okuniewska (red.), Język jako przedmiot badań psychologicznych. Psycholingwistyka ogólna i neurolingwistyka. Warszawa: Academica.
dc.referencesLee, A.Y., Semin, G.R. (2009). Culture through the Lens of Self-Regulatory Orientations. [W:] R.S. Wyer, C. Chiu, Y. Hong (red.), Understanding Culture: Theory, Research and Application (s.271–288). New York: Psychology Press.
dc.referencesLiberman, N., Trope, J. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526.
dc.referencesMaass, A., Salvi, C., Arcuri, L., Semin, G.R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The lin- guistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981–993.
dc.referencesMaass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., Stahlberg, D. (1995). The linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group-protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 116–126.
dc.referencesMaass, A., Ceccarelli, R., Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526.
dc.referencesPinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow & Company.
dc.referencesRączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2011). Zjednoczeni w mowie. Względność językowa w ujęciu dynamicznym. Warszawa: Scholar.
dc.referencesRoss, L., Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. [W:] T. Brown, E.S. Reed, E. Turiel (red.), Values and knowledge (s.103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R. (1996). The relevance of language for social psychology. [W:] C. McGarty, A. Haslam (red.), The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind and society (s. 291–304). Oxford: Blackwell.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R. (2000a). Language as a cognitive and behavioral structuring resource: Question – answer exchanges. [W:] W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone (red.), European review of social psychology, Vol. 10 (s. 75–104). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R. (2000b). Agenda 2000: Communication: Language as an implementational device for cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 595–612.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R. (2009). Language, culture, cognition – how do they intersect? [W:] R.S. Wyer, C. Chiu, Y. Hong (red.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application (s. 259–270). New York: Psychology Press.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Cacioppo, J.T. (2008). Grounding social cognition: synchronization, entrainment, and coordination. [W:] G.R. Semin, E.R. Smith (red.), Embodied grounding: social, cognitive, af- fective and neuroscientific approaches (s. 119–147). New York, Cambridge University Press.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Fiedler, K. (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a language-cognition interface: The case of actorsʼ and observersʼperspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491–508.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. [W:] W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone (red.), European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. (s. 1–30). Chichester: Wiley.
dc.referencesSemin G.R., Fiedler, K. (1992). Language, interaction and social cognition. [W:] G.R. Semin, K. Fiedler (red.), Language, interaction and social cognition (s. 1–10). London, California: Sage Publications.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Garrido, M.V. (2012). A systemic approach to impression formation: from verbal to multimodal process. [W:] J. Forgas, K. Fiedler, C. Sedikides (red.), Social thinking and inter- personal behavior (s. 81–100). New York, Psychology Press.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Görts, C.A., Nandram, S., Semin-Goossenes, A. (2002). Cultural perspectives on the linguistic representation of emotion events. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 11–28.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., De Poot, J.C. (1997). You might regret it if you donʼt notice how a question is worded! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 472–480.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Rubini, M., Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb cau- sality upon locus of explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834–842.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Smith, E.R. (1999). Revisiting the past and back to the future: Memory Systems and the Linguistic Representation of Social Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 877–892.
dc.referencesSemin, G.R., Smith, E.R. (2013). Socially situated cognition in perspective. Social Cognition, 31, 125–146.
dc.referencesSchmidt, J. Fiedler, K. (1996). Language and implicit attributions in the Nuremberg trialsʼ Analys- ing prosecutorsʼ and defence attorneysʼ final speeches. Human Communication Research, 22, 371–398.
dc.referencesSmith, E.R., DeCoster, J. (1998). Knowledge acquisition, accessibility, and use in person perception and stereotyping: Simulation with a recurrent connectionist network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 21–35.
dc.referencesSmith, E.R., Semin, G.R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53–117.
dc.referencesSmith, P.K., Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596.
dc.referencesVon Hippel, W., Sekaquaptewa, D., Vargas, P. (1997). The Linguistic Intergroup Bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 490–509.
dc.referencesVan Rooijen, M.R., Semin, G.R. van Leeuwen, E. (2007). The effect of linguistic abstraction on interpersonal distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 817–823.
dc.referencesWerkman, W.M., Wigboldus, D.H.J., Semin, G.R. (1999). Childrenʼs communication of the linguistic intergroup bias and its impact upon cognitive inferences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 95–104
dc.referencesWhorf, B.L. (2002). Język, myśl i rzeczywistość. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo KR.
dc.referencesWigboldus, D.H.J., Semin, G.R., Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5–18.
dc.referencesWigboldus, D.H., Semin, G.R., Spears, R. (2006). Communicating expectancies about others. Euro- pean Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 815–824.
dc.referencesWilliams, L.E., Bargh, J.A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth, promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606–607.
dc.referencesWróbel, Sz. (2013). Ewolucja dyspozycji do zachowań kooperacyjnych a komunikacja symbolicz- na. Przypadek Petera Gärdenforsa. [W:] P. Stalmaszczyk (red.), Metodologie językoznawstwa. Ewolucja języka. Ewolucja teorii językoznawczych (s. 27–53). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
dc.referencesZwier, S., Semin, G.R. (1996). Tools and tool use in cultural perspective: The case of variation and generality in social cognition. Kurt Lewin Institute: Free University Amsterdam.


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord