Christina Schwaller

4 August, 2010
No Minor Feat: Reflections on the Cognitive Science Minor
After a long absence, I returned to Truman State University in the spring of 2007, this
time as a linguistics major. That semester, I took a course on cognitive psychology, and it
fascinated me. I began to take courses toward a psychology minor, which I would fulfill by
taking as many cognition-related courses as possible. Shortly thereafter, the cognitive science
interdisciplinary minor was introduced, and I was thrilled. I have now completed both my
linguistics major requirements and my cognitive science courses, and I know that these areas of
study have together enriched my knowledge and helped to prepare me for graduate school. The
minor in cognitive science requires that students take courses in at least three of the following
categories: computational cognition, language and cognition, philosophy of cognition, and
psychology of cognition. Most of my coursework was in the language and psychology areas, but
I feel that the courses I took also informed me a great deal on the computational and
philosophical approaches to cognitive science.

Computational Cognition
Computational cognition is the study of the computational foundation through which
learning and inference occur in the brain. Through such study, one seeks to understand the basis
behind the processing of information by means of mathematical modeling, computer simulation,
and behavioral experiments. Almost every course in the Cognitive Science minor utilizes
computational cognition to some degree. For instance, Phonetics and Phonology employs logical
formulas to state phonetic rules as they are believed to exist in the human mind.

Schwaller 2
PSYC 331 Cognitive Psychology
In Cognitive Psychology, I wrote a paper on Jeff Hawkinss book On Intelligence. His
model for a learning machine is centered on a theory that all of intelligence is acquired via a
memory-prediction framework acting in the neocortex. Hawkins insists that the plasticity of
neurons and Mountcastles theory of a universal algorithm are evidence enough that a model can
be built with silicon chips as soon as that algorithm is calculated. The cornerstones on which
Hawkins has built his theory are memory-prediction, parallel sequencing, and hierarchical
organization.
A team of researchers tested nerve firing in monkeys during motor tasks, and the results
seemed to suggest a high level of plasticity in certain certain neurons, as well as suggesting that a
memory-prediction process influences the firing of some neurons in motor tasks. The
experimenters found differences in firing patterns of inferior parietal lobule (IPL) neurons for the
same task depending on the intention associated with that task. The aspects affecting this were
found to be not from variation in the motor act (grasping), but variation of the future purpose that
act served. The connected future action intended had an effect on the brain activity during the
first action. Not only did the monkeys brains follow similar firing patterns when observing an
act, but they followed the same guidelines of intention. The neurons that discharge in both
performance and observation of an act are dubbed parietal mirror neurons (Fogassi 2005). In
order to fire in certain ways based on intention of observed acts, the circuitry of the brain must
incorporate a top-down prediction process. The experiments described here are, even on the
surface, evidential of a memory-prediction system that is present in perception (Fogassi, 2005).
The research supports Hawkinss idea of prediction as the source of various other
cognitive tasks. The theory that sensation and motor control are results of the same basic process

Schwaller 3
is both evidence and conclusion of the aforementioned universal prediction theory. Furthermore,
the similarities in brain activity for motor control and perception provide support for the theory
that cognitive processes are all built upon the same basic algorithm.
In these tests, subjects evaluated action words while motor areas in the left brain
(primarily used for language) were excited with the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS). It was found that choice reaction time was shorter when a word related to the area of the
body to which the stimulated motor area was connected. The scientists performing this study
concluded that the linguistic analysis and sensorimotor systems of the brain are highly interactive
when there is a meaningful reason for such interaction (Pulvemller 2005).

Language and Cognition

Psycholinguistics deals with comprehension and production of language, specifically
focusing on how the mind organizes, stores, and processes language. It encompasses any subject
involving cognition and language. At first largely philosophical, psycholinguistics now studies
data from brain imaging and takes into account computational theories from other subdisciplines
of linguistics.
ENG 414 Language and the Mind
Language and the Mind deals with various topics of psycholinguistics. In this course, I
studied such topics as language processing, storage and access, comprehension theory,
neurobiology, and language deficits. Each of these informed my understanding of the possible
cognitive pathways and processes that make language possible for humans.
One of the steps toward an understanding of language cognition is discussion of the
structure of the language regions of the brain. This neuroscientific approach considers

Schwaller 4
hypotheses on the locations where particular linguistic processes occur. Methods for this include
various brain imaging technologies, study of individuals with brain damage to specific areas, and
comparison between human and animal brains. Through such methods, we can see that certain
language faculties are, in part, localized to particular regions of the brain. However, brain
imaging technologies have allowed us to see that each linguistic process involves more than just
one area of the brain. Although the left side of the brain is associated with interpretation of
symbols and analytic processing, the right side of the brain is also involved in language,
especially when perceptual and spatial representation are involved. Brocas and Wernickes
aphasias affect very specific parts of speech, suggesting that these factors are somewhat localized.
However, linguistic processes follow paths through various areas of the brain, so damage to
Brocas and Wernickes areas does not eliminate the language faculty.
Connectionist models of language processing assert that frequency of usage strengthens a
connection in the memory. If a neural pathway between two words is used frequently enough,
then one word will quickly facilitate access of the other. Connection strength explains why
frequently used words are the easiest to retrieve. It may also be the reason for collocation,
through which we retrieve certain words together.
The information processing approach emphasizes the complexity of language processing
by charting the flow of information through several steps. Sensation and perception allow
humans to see and recognize patterns, based on smaller characteristics of the stimulus, matching
the whole to a representation in the long-term memory, and assigning a category or identity to
the stimulus. Short-term or working memory holds the stimulus and, if necessary, passes it on to
the long-term memory. Surprisingly, linguists and psychologists believe that decoding of
perceived language actually involves construction of meaning and integration of new meaning

Schwaller 5
into what has already been decoded. Charting the levels of representation in language decoding
in this way largely relies on bottom-up processing, whereby the mind uses small units to
assemble larger ones. However, top-down processing also gives us the ability to recognize the
intended word when it is misspelled or mispronounced, as well as to guess the next word in a
sentence or parse the grammatical construction of an utterance before it is completed. The
interactive view of language processing suggests that processes may occur in both directions
simultaneously, or in parallel. Below is Levelts model of speaking. This model employs an
interactive approach in which decoding and encoding occur in parallel, utilizing both top-down
and bottom-up processes.

Schwaller 6
Levelts Model of Speaking

(Field 128)

Schwaller 7
LING 413 Advanced Linguistics (Semantics and Pragmatics)
In the Advanced Linguistics course on semantics and pragmatics, I worked on a study in
which I explored cognitive processes and mental organization of data at a specific level of
semantics. With a partner, I designed and performed an experiment on locative verbs. Locatives
are verbs that indicate transfer of content to or from a container. These verbs are puzzling in that
they take different syntactic construction for some reason that is not automatically decipherable.
Some always treat the content as the main argument (ex. fill the cup with water/ *fill water
into the cup). Others may only show the up in constructions where the container is linked to the
direct object (ex. poured paint onto the floor/ *poured the floor with paint). Some are
alternators, and can link either the content or the container to the grammatical direct object (ex.
loaded the gun with ammo/ loaded ammo into the gun).
Linguists have not yet discovered how the mind determines which syntactic constructions
these content-to-container verbs can take. Some existing research supported a theory that the
way locatives are categorized in the grammar can be predicted based on the nature of the specific
actions they describe. Non-alternating locatives can be classified into two groups: manner and
endstate. Manner locatives indicate movement of content. These locatives are specific about the
nature of the transfer, and how the container changes as a result is not their primary focus. These
locatives require content-based syntax, meaning that the content needs to be the indirect object,
and the container must be the direct object (ex. Tex pounded nails into the wall/ *Tex
pounded the wall with nails). Endstate verbs are the opposite case, in that they require
container-based constructions (ex. Bob filled the cup with water/ *Bob filled water into the
cup). Because there is no clear distinction between the primitive semantic features of these
locative verbs, scientists are not sure how children learn to categorize them in the mental lexicon.

Schwaller 8
In basic semantics, an object being moved in space is labeled as the patient or theme.
However, this is not the case when a verb links the ground or container entity to the grammatical
object. Some linguists theorize that verbs can or must take a container locative in situations
where the primary action describes a state-change of the ground or container as a result of
motion. If this is the case, the mind categorizes the stationary object as the main affected
argument and treats it as the grammatical argument.
The first linking theories were developed in the 1960s and 1970s and were built upon a
list-of-primitives structural model. Basic thematic roles (i.e., agent, theme, goal) were linked to
grammatical relations. Unfortunately, these theories overgeneralized linking patterns. In the
case of locative verbs, they did not allow for the semantic/syntactic correspondences displayed
by container-locative constructions (i.e., fill, as in fill the glass with water, in which glass is
both the ground entity and the direct object).
Recent linking theories have abandoned the list-of-primitives model for a more abstract
semantic structure technique. A verb is said to have a structured semantic representation that
makes explicit the agentive, causal, and temporal properties of the event (157). Semantic
structure theory uses more abstract primitives in defining meaning. This seems to decrease the
unpredictability of locative alternators and container-locatives. It can also reveal the tendency of
container-locative verbs and alternators to describe two events: a movement of the content
(figure) and a state-change of the container (ground). Whichever one is considered to be the
main argument determines the syntactic construction. If a verb describes how something moves,
it is also explaining that it moves. The same goes for change in endstate. With this process,
predictions can be made on which constructions a particular verb will accept.

Schwaller 9
For our literature review, we studied the methods and findings of previous experiments
involving locatives. In one study, three experiments were performed to assess speakers use of
verb meaning to predict syntax. In each experiment, children and adults were taught novel verbs
for a transfer of content to a container, and these actions were performed. The subjects were
asked to describe the actions using the new verbs in their own sentences. Depending on which
effect (motion of figure or state-change of ground) was made to appear more salient, the
participants hypothetically would move toward either a figure or ground argument. The results
all supported a theory that a manner of motion results in a mental representation of figure as
primary object, while a change in endstate of the stationary entity shifts the ground into the
position of main argument. There was also strong negating evidence for the assumption that the
mental lexicon has a content-locative-only rule for locative verbs with container-locatives
resulting from exceptions. The regularity in which container-locative constructions arose when
predicted by their semantic structure theory supports the idea that the ground-object construction
is the result of a gestalt shift of the endstate-effected verb to a position for manner-effected verbs.
To clarify the results of previous research, we redesigned one of the experiments from
our literature review. We felt that in order to reach any definite conclusions, more of the
variables needed to be made constant. We stabilized variables such as participant age, using only
adults age 18-23. We also allowed less variety in the testing materials, so that the different
characteristics of the materials would not affect results. Finally, we limited possible responses to
ranked multiple-choice answers, so that our results would be easily quantifiable.
For the figure or content entity, we used sponges. The first group of participants received
dry sponges, and the second group received sponges soaked in an acidic solution. The surface or
container entity was homemade pH test paper made from cabbage juice. Both groups were given

Schwaller 10
the same response sheet. The following answers appeared in four different random orders to
counterbalance any influence order might have on selection.
a. mooped the sponge
b. mooped the paper
c. mooped the sponge onto the paper
d. mooped the paper with the sponge
For the first subject group, a novel manner verb was presented for testing. A student
proctor passed out a small sponge, a piece of paper stained with cabbage juice, and an answer
sheet to each subject. She demonstrated by bouncing a sponge onto the paper, causing no statechange to the paper, and said that the action was called mooping. Next, she asked all participants
to repeat the action. They were then directed to their answer sheet and asked to rank four
syntactic options in order of what they were most likely to say.
For group 2, participant reactions to a novel endstate verb were tested. The proctor passed
out a sheet of litmus paper, a sponge soaked in lemon juice, and an answer sheet to each
participant. She then demonstrated a process to be performed by the participants. This process
involved touching the sponge to the paper, which caused a change in the papers color. The
demonstrator described this action as mooping and prompted the participants to repeat the action.
Subjects then ranked the four options on the answer sheet, just like the previous section.
We hypothesized that the group performing a manner-based task would produce more
content-locative constructions, and the group performing an endstate task would produce more
container-locative constructions.
Mooped the paper and mooped the paper with the sponge are the container-based
locatives, while mooped the sponge and mooped the sponge to the paper are content-based.

Schwaller 11
By multiplying the number of responses in each ranking (1, 2, 3, 4) and finding the sum of these
numbers, an overall ranking was found for each option. The lower numbers suggest greater
preference.
The results of the dry trial showed, as predicted, a tendency toward content-based
locatives when describing manner of movement.
Paper with Sponge = 99
Paper = 83
Sponge = 72
Sponge to Paper = 56
Container = 182
Content = 128
In the wet trial, the results were less clear.
Sponge = 81
Paper = 79
Sponge to Paper = 72
Paper with Sponge = 68
Content = 153
Container = 147
The results in the wet sponge group were much closer in that there was still heavy use of contentbased locatives. This could lead us to believe that something within the action caused a change
in the content (sponge) to appear salient to participants in Group 2. However, it could also
simply weaken the original hypothesis. After all, there was no apparent flaw in the procedure

Schwaller 12
that might cause content and container locatives to occur with nearly the same frequency in this
situation.
One interesting side observation is that people tended to prefer the answer that gave the
most detail. Neither Paper nor Sponge was favored, despite being appropriate locatives. This
difference between simple and complex locative constructions was not studied in the
experiments previous to ours. The totals of the content and container locatives, however, still
show far less severe a dichotomy than was suggested by the findings of previous studies. Our
results were not definitive enough to be taken as reliable support for or against their theory.
There is need for a revised study with a stricter procedure in order to really clarify the findings.

Philosophy of Cognition
Philosophy of cognition studies the nature of the mind, consciousness, and mental
functions from a philosophical view, using rational thought to formulate possible truths. Several
of the courses that I took at Truman dealt with varying philosophies of the mind. We often used
philosophy and logic to postulate possible connections between mental events and the physical
brain.
ENG/LING 413 Advanced Linguistics
Each of the Advanced Linguistics courses I took (Semantics and Pragmatics, Phonetics
and Phonology, and Morphology) dealt with inference of linguistic rules from observation of
patterns in language. These rules are parts of the mental grammar, believed to contribute to the
cognitive processes of encoding and decoding language. Not only do these areas of formal
linguistics deal with language and cognition, but they also delve into the philosophy of cognition.
Each area of formal linguistics theorizes about the nature of cognition by supposing that a certain

Schwaller 13
aspect of the grammar may be the basest building block of language. For example, some
semanticists believe that semantic information is the first aspect of language that the brain
considers when encoding speech. In the study of morphology, one might consider that linguistic
information is categorized based on morphological paradigms.
J.L. Austins How to Do Things with Words is definitely the most strictly philosophical
text that I read in the Semantics and Pragmatics course. It does not go into detail about
computation or experiments but instead focuses mainly on philosophical argument. Austin was,
in fact, a philosopher of language, not a linguist. In How to Do Things with Words, Austin
contradicts the previously established assumption that language can be completely broken down
into a truth-value system. He argues that many sentences can be deemed neither true nor false,
as they are not statements of possible truths. Austin spends much of the lecture defining and
explaining performative utterances. I will not go into detail about the performative, but it is
worth mentioning because it has inspired much further research in the field of pragmatics.
Austins work in philosophy of language has inspired generations since within the realm of
philosophical linguistics, and linguists have expanded and his theories through computational
and psychological methods as well.
PHRE 342 Symbolic Logic
Another area that contributes to the philosophy of cognition is logic, the study of
reasoning. In part, it seeks to clarify and explain the processes by which the human mind solves
problems. This field utilizes a simple language in order to evaluate statements and determine
truth or fallacy. Logic is, in its methodology, extremely computational. However, its ultimate
goal is to deduce a true philosophy of the mind by determining the formulas humans use for
critical thinking. PHRE 342 or Symbolic Logic is examines the formal deductive systems

Schwaller 14
underlying mathematics and, presumably, thought. In this course, we studied sentential logic,
predicate logic, the logic of relations, the algebra of sets, and modal logic. The advanced forms
of mathematical logic studied also served to describe newer philosophies of language and
cognition. Rather than simply positing binary truth values, these forms of logic took into account
such concepts as necessity and possibility. Therefore, they are likely more accurate as
representations of not only math, but language as well. If we assume that language mirrors
thought, and surely the logic of semantics mirrors the logic of cognition, then it is fair to say that
symbolic logic comes as close to describing our many complex cognitive processes as any
previously existing logic has.

Psychology of cognition
Cognitive psychology explores internal mental processes from an approach concerned
mainly with the human psyche and behaviors. It is a theoretical method that employs quantitative
and scientific methodologies in order to create information processing models for higher-level
mental functions.
PSYCH 331 Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology, as a Truman course, examines the current knowns and unknowns
of human cognition, with particular attention to complex cognitive tasks. We spent time studying
human information processing theories, as well as other types of research and theory. Particular
emphasis was given to the connectionist approach to human cognition. We primarily discussed
the complex cognitive tasks that are unique to the human mind, and we were encouraged to come
up with their own theories on such processes as pattern recognition, attention, memory, sensation
and perception, language processing, problem solving, and decision making.

Schwaller 15
PSYCH 370 Human Sensation and Perception
An important topic in cognitive psychology is the organization of information within the
brain. Both storage and processing are believed to involve a combination of localization and
lateralization. When human perception makes a mistake, the mistake can inform us of a possible
overlap in processing pathways. For the Sensation and Perception course I studied the link
between spicy taste sensations and its connection to false perception of hot or burning tactile
sensations, as well as the similar cooling felt in connection with menthol. In my research, I
found that capsaicin, a chemical found in chili peppers, is considered responsible for the
inaccurate sensation of burning heat that is found alongside the subjective taste description of
spicy. Similarly, menthol creates a false feeling of extremely low temperature. For both
substances, the occurrence of perceived temperature change can occur anywhere on the skin but
are particularly intense on the tongue.
I considered multiple theories about where in the brains perceptual pathways an overlap
between taste and pain characteristics might occur. Similarities in taste and pain can be seen in
that they involve some of the same areas of the brain. The thalamus and the insula region of the
cortex are involved in both of these perceptual processes. Therefore, information of both types
could collide at either the subcortical or cortical level. However, this would suggest a much
greater level of synesthesia in most or all of perception, due to the fact that some of these areas
are used for filtering or processing many types of information. Since this does not occur, it would
be more likely that an answer lies either within the chemical makeup of the taste stimuli or in the
surface aspects of tongue regions and their receptive fields.
I performed research to evaluate the effects of capsaicin and menthol on subjects
perception, using a psychophysical approach. These tests involved the separate application of

Schwaller 16
substances containing each of these chemicals to different regions of the tongue, in order to also
determine which region or taste buds were most sensitive to the chemicals. Participants were
asked to describe their taste and cutaneous reactions to the stimuli. In a separate test, I applied
pressure with a toothpick to the separate regions of the tongue. This served the purpose of
determining whether any region of the tongue has more nocireceptors receptors located all over
the skin that are activated by pressure, extreme temperature, or burning chemicals to send a pain
signal to the brain than any other region.
The results showed that the middle region of the tongue was less susceptible to both taste
and temperature sensations. This region is also devoid of taste buds. However, the pressure test
showed that all regions reacted at approximately the same level when given a pressure stimulus.
For this reason, I believe that the regions have a similar number of nocireceptors. However, our
minds so strongly link the particular taste sensations with temperature or pain sensations that it is
probably inpossible to judge each accurately. In a way, taste buds are a source of temperaturerelated pain reactions, because the sensation of spicy brings forth the memory of burning heat.
The overlap between these different kinds of sensations probably occurs higher up in the
cognitive pathways. Both pain signals and taste signals pass through the thalamus. It is possible
that the perceptual error happens here. These signals are also sent to the insula, in the cortex,
which is another possible site for the overlap. However, these areas receive many sorts of
perceptual information and usually manage to sort it accordingly. In addition, these explanations
ignore the dilemma of why only certain chemicals cause the taste/pain perceptual effect.
No clear and certain explanation has been found by this or more professional research.
However, this topic is growing in popularity. The perceptual phenomenon caused multimodal
response to the pungent chemicals capsaicin and menthol is similar to the experience of

Schwaller 17
synesthesia. Both events seem to have great potential to inform cognitive scientists on the
sensation and perception pathways in the brain, which may be both localized and lateralized
according to mode, with some occasional crossing.

Internship Experience in Cognitive Science

ENG 451 Internship for English (Autism Research)
In the spring of 2009, I took part in a research internship, along with a few other students,
under Dr. Mary Shapiro. Our research focused on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Dr.
Shapiros long-term goal for the project was to develop new materials and approaches for people
with ASD to develop interactive skills. In particular, she noticed that most existing literature
taught only basic, fundamental language skills. Yet, as its name suggests, ASD covers a
spectrum of disorders, indicating various levels of cognitive, linguistic, and social potential.
People toward one end of the spectrum often show high rates of success in existing intervention.
This seems to imply that such individuals might benefit from further, more advanced instruction.
Our purpose was to determine the possible merit of developing such a program of speech and
language instruction, aimed at adolescents and adults who have completed existing programs
successfully.
After discussing the goals of the project, we began our research with an extensive
literature review. We studied every resource that was available to us in order to find out what
skills were already being taught. Special attention was paid to subtle aspects of speech, including
paralinguistic behaviors, like active listening cues (minimal responses, nodding). Also an area of
focus was discussion of advanced linguistic strategies, ranging from turn-taking and topic
maintenance to explanations of complex sociolinguistic phenomena. We found that many

Schwaller 18
materials addressed paralinguistic actions, often as part of a larger aim to educate children in
performing specific speech acts. The speech acts addressed were quite numerous, and they were
often taught through scripts or simple picture stories. We did not find, however, any curricula
that explored sociolinguistic topics in great depth. The literature review revealed a lack of
educational resources on dialect, register, and many other related topics.
Once we had found these subjects to be missing from existing ASD programs, we sought
to determine what merit such programs might have. The first step in this was to see how highfunctioning adults with ASD handled the difficult facets of spoken language in social situations.
We transcribed the speech of a few men at an Autism support group meeting, quantitatively
analyzing various linguistic phenomena that we observed. For a control, we chose a social group
consisting of neurotypical men and performed the same analysis on their transcribed speech. Our
data showed significantly higher rates of phonological simplification among the neurotypical
speakers than among those with ASD. Such simplification is associated with casual speech
registers and nonstandard dialects. Neurotypical adults often code-switch between formal and
informal registers, depending on context. In the ASD group, avoidance of nonstandard variation
may be the result of a lapse in language instruction. Code-switching behaviors are not formally
taught, so the adults with ASD may not have acquired this skill. Similarly, we found slightly
more pragmatic wordplay in the control group than in the ASD group. As suspected, the control
group showed greater understanding of appropriateness, non-literal or indirect meaning, context,
accommodation, and other interactional influences. Even so, the adults in the ASD group applied
advanced pragmatic concepts and displayed comprehension beyond what is normally expected of
people with ASD. Overall, this corpus study clarified an existing disparity between the advanced
linguistic skills of neurotypical adults and those with ASD.

Schwaller 19
The interns involvement in this project culminated with the design and implementation
of a survey to gauge audience reactions to formal versus informal register. We also aimed to
measure how their judgments might be affected by knowledge of a speaker having Autism. The
research group produced two versions of a video for participants to view. In each of these, an
actor played Joe, a student who is working on his storytelling and interaction skills. He first tells
a story as a monologue, in which he reports the players conversation. Next, he discusses movies
with a friend. In the first version, Joe speaks in a moderately formal register, avoiding
nonstandard or slang words. The second version differs only in this respect. During his
monologue, Joe uses be like and be all to report conversation (i.e., I was like... and He was
all...). In the dialogue, he uses the words awesome and sucks to express his approval and
disapproval of various things.
For the survey, undergraduate students were allowed to participate. They were separated
into four groups. Groups 1 and 3 viewed the version of the video in which Joe used only standard
vocabulary. Groups 2 and 4 viewed the recording featuring be like/be all and awesome/sucks.
They were all given the same set of questions, except that groups 3 and 4 were additionally told
that Joe had ASD. Participants in these two groups were also asked to rate their level of
experience with ASD. The ultimate configuration of variables was as such: Group 1 = standard
language with no mention of ASD, Group 2 = nonstandard language with no mention of ASD,
Group 3 = standard language with mention of ASD, and Group 4 = nonstandard language with
mention of ASD. Their questionnaires asked respondents to rate Joes performance in a number
of areas, using a scale of 1 to 10. These included friendliness, intelligence, confidence, and
honesty. Based on our knowledge of similar studies, we predicted that respondents in the
nonstandard language groups would give higher ratings for friendliness and honesty. This was

Schwaller 20
not the case. In responses to the monologue portion, nonstandard language correlated with lower
scores on some questions and had no significant effect on others. Even with regard to
friendliness, the slang words did not prove advantageous. The highest ratings came from group 3,
revealing positive reactions to the ASD label in combination with standard language usage.
Questions regarding the dialogue portion resulted in different trends. The nonstandard versions
scored higher than the standard versions here. An ASD label corresponded to better scores again,
with highest ratings in group 4, showing ASD label and nonstandard language to be the most
positively received combination. Interestingly, when asked how much their own opinions
matched Joes, group 4 showed the most agreement. Answers to the dialogue portion revealed
positive correlations between ASD label and response, as well as between nonstandard language
and response. These trends may reflect feelings of compassion toward disability and solidarity
among speakers with common nonstandard variation (in this case, the nonstandard language
examples are common within the respondents age group). Taken altogether, the survey results
are inconclusive. We can cite one conclusive trend - positive reactions to an ASD label - but
hearer reaction to our nonstandard stimuli needs to be retested.

For the Cognitive Science minor, I have tried to educate myself in a broad range of
subtopics while remaining focused on the essential concepts in the study of cognition. My
courses were from three areas of the cognitive science minor, but as interdisciplinarity suggests,
they frequently dealt with more than one area. My internship experience gave me the opportunity
to apply the theories and concepts I had learned to research in a field that is also socially
important. In the end, I am quite satisfied with the knowledge and critical thinking skills that I
have developed while pursuing this minor.

Schwaller 21
Works Referenced
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975. Print.
Field, John. Psycholinguistics: a Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Fogassi, L., P. Ferrari, B. Gesierich, S. Rozzi, F. Chersi, and G. Rizzolatti. "Parietal Lobe: From
Action Organization to Intention Understanding." Science 308.5722 (2005): 662-67.
Academic Search Elite. Web. 2 Apr. 2007.
Hawkins, Jeff, and Sandra Blakeslee. On Intelligence. New York: Times, 2004. Print.
Pulvermller, F., O. Hauk, V. Nikulin, and R. Ilmoniemi. "Functional Links between Motor and
Language Systems." European Journal of Neuroscience 21.3 (2005): 793-97. Academic
Search Elite. Web. 23 Apr. 2007.