How deep are words?

I have really liked going on the npr Cosmos& Culture Commentary On science and Society website. I think there articles are really easy to follow and relate to my own life and what we have been learning in class for this week I was really thinking about the ZAPS activities. They have been a huge part of this class and very interesting.

While reading this article I could really connect to the ZAPS assignment Memory Bias and Serial Position. Where there were words and then type out the ones you could remember. When I was doing these assignments I really could remember the words that I would relate to and see a picture in my head. When the words related to each other it also helped to make it easier. Like with the word sofa I always think of this bright pink sofa I saw online years ago and it has stayed with me even though I only saw it that one time.

In this article they were speaking about how words can make you think of the objects in more deeper terms. They used the word “dog” a lot. They said when most people hear the word dog they picture a type of dog they are most use to or around. I know when I hear “dog” I think of a black Doberman because that is what I have and see all the time. While if I were to ask my brother he would most likely say a pit-bull because he has two to them. Everyone has memories so they lead to different images when words are presented. No one is wrong with the images that come to mind by the variety of different responses is how we learn more and grow in the field.

As the article continued it talked about talking about connecting the work with another word that identifies the same thing. Like the word dog and the word bark. They both make you think of the same thing. But the word bark can help you identify to type or size¬† and location of the animal making the barking noise. They did a study to see if this really worded. They either showed you a word “dog, drum, bird” or they played the noise for that object. Then after you heard the noise and saw the word they had to say yes they were the same or no they weren’t. People reacted very quick with there yes or no responses. Next they did the same type of task but just a little more in depth. They showed a picture of a Yorkie and then played audio of the same dog barking and they had to indicate if it was the same yes or no as above. The results showed that they weren’t faster or slower at the same task. They could not tell if difference came from the more compacted reference or if people just tend to hear things differently.

This article showed that the more general a word is leaves it more opened to there own interruption and response to the word. I think this is very true because everyone has different experiences. I also do not think that everyone would have the same outcomes to this study. Because maybe someone has never been around dogs due to health reasons or something else they might not be able to tell the difference  between different sounds of barks. Same would go with a deaf person would not be able to due to sound and picture task. But I wonder if this would still work on a broad scale. For example is we had a person look a picture then close there eyes and feel and object and say yes or no if they are the same. I think this would be another great way to tell the same kind of test but without sound.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/07/14/422527144/the-magic-of-words-transcending-the-tyranny-of-the-specific