DOCSLIB.ORG

In Search of Lexical Whorf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Search of Lexical Whorf Hugvísindasvið In Search of Lexical Whorf: A Comparison Between the Lexical Influence on Thought in the Standard View of Whorf and Whorf’s own Writings in the Light of Empirical Evidence Ritgerð til M.A.-prófs Unnar Örn Harðarson Maí 2012 Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Enska In Search of Lexical Whorf: A Comparison Between the Lexical Influence on Thought in the Standard View of Whorf and Whorf’s own Writings in the Light of Empirical Evidence Ritgerð til M.A.prófs Unnar Örn Harðarson Kt.080871-4739 Leiðbeinandi: Dr.Matthew Whelpton Maí 2012 2 Summary The name Whorf has become synonymous with Linguistic Relativism and strong linguistic determinism. Today, the views of Benjamin Lee Whorf are generally known in the form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (SWH) and selected passages from his writings. This standard way of presenting Whorf fails to distinguish adequetly between lexical and grammatical influences on thought in his writings and his views are therefore considered to be extreme. This leads to a false standard image of the lexical aspect of Whorf’s theories, a false lexical Whorf. In chapter 1 the theoretical roots of Whorf’s views are explored, as well as the standardization of those views. Early empirical evidence in support of the SWH which led to wide acceptance of Whorf will then be reviewed. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the rejection of linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism which marginalized Whorf. Chapters 4,5 and 6 reveal the rebirth of Whorf’s theories in the form of Neo-Whorfianism and a host of studies that followed which investigated the relationship between terminologies of number, spatial orientation and colour and cognition. Chapter 7 then offers an interpretation of the results of those studies which showed considerable support for a weak influence on thought. Chapter 8 reveals the differences between grammatical and lexical influences in Whorf’s view where the former are strong and the latter are weak. The real lexical Whorf is then a weak kind of linguistic determinism and is therefore in considerable agreement with the empirical evidence reviewed in chapters 4-6. In chapter 9 the growing interest in Whorf’s actual writings is described and three areas of future research explored. Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Whorf and Linguistic Relativism ............................................................................... 2 1.1 Standard Whorf ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Theoretical Roots .................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 The German Romantics ................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 The American Anthropological Linguists ....................................................... 7 1.2.3 The French Connection ................................................................................... 9 1.3 The Formulation of the Whorf Thesis and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis ............... 9 1.4 Early Empirical Evidence ..................................................................................... 10 1.4.1 Brown and Lenneberg: Color Codability ...................................................... 10 1.4.2 Lenneberg and Roberts: Evidence for Linguistic Relativity ......................... 11 1.4.3 Acceptance of Whorf ..................................................................................... 11 2.0 Whorf Rejected I: Linguistic Relativism .................................................................. 13 2.1 Empirical Counterevidence .................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Berlin and Kay: Basic Color Terms .............................................................. 13 2.1.2 Heider: Focal Colors ...................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Criticism of Berlin and Kay and Heider ........................................................ 15 2.1.4 Kay and Kempton: Name Strategy ................................................................ 16 2.2 Criticism of Whorf’s Writings and Data .............................................................. 17 2.2.1 Grammatical Data .......................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Lexical Data ................................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Ambiguity and Vagueness in Whorf’s Writings ........................................... 19 2.2.4 Ambiguity and Vagueness in the SWH and WT Formulations..................... 20 3.0 Whorf Rejected II: Linguistic Determinism ............................................................. 24 3.1 Versions of Strong Linguistic Determinism ......................................................... 24 3.2 Language Determines all Thought ....................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Counterevidence I: Animals .......................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Counterevidence II: Infants ........................................................................... 25 3.3 Language Determines All Adult Human Thinking .............................................. 26 3.3.1 Visual Thinking ............................................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Brain Damage and Language Disorders ........................................................ 27 3.3.3 Speech is not Thought ................................................................................... 29 3.4 Language Determines some Human Thinking ..................................................... 30 3.4.1 Orwellian Determinism ................................................................................. 30 3.4.2 Requirement vs. Constitution ........................................................................ 31 3.5 The Rejection of Linguistic Determinism ............................................................ 37 4.0 Neo-Whorfian Studies I: Number Terms ................................................................. 39 4.1 The Miura Studies: Better Performance of Asian Children ................................. 39 4.2 Towse and Saxton: The Importance of Cultural Factors ...................................... 40 4.3 Brysbaert et al: Autonomy of the Number System from the Language System .. 41 4.4 The Word Length Effect ....................................................................................... 43 4.5 Gordon: The Piraha as a Case of Linguistic Determinism ................................... 44 4.6 Pica et al: Approximate vs. Exact Number Sense ................................................ 45 4.7 Everett: Cultural Contraints of the Piraha ............................................................ 47 4.8 Frank et al: The Piraha Can Understand Exact Matching .................................... 48 4.9 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 49 5.0 Neo-Whorfian Studies II: Spatial Orientation Terms ............................................... 51 ii 5.1 Pederson et al: Diversity in Spatial Orientation Lexicalization ........................... 51 5.2 Li and Gleitman: The Importance of Spatial-Contextual Conditions................... 53 5.3 Levinson et al: Intrinsic vs Absolute Frames of Reference .................................. 54 5.4 Li et al: Lexical Resources do not Limit Spatial Orientation ............................... 55 5.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 57 6.0 Neo-Whorfian Studies III: Return to Color Terms ................................................... 58 6.1 Davies and Corbett: Modest Evidence for Weak Linguistic Relativity ............... 58 6.2 Davidoff, Davies and Roberson: Linguistic Influence on Color Categorization . 58 6.3 Roberson, Davies and Davidoff: Color Categories not Universal........................ 59 6.4 Kay and Regier: Strong Universal Tendencies in Color Naming ........................ 60 6.5 Regier, Kay & Cook: Focal Colors are Universal ................................................ 61 6.6 Kay and Regier: Color Naming Universals: The Case of Berinmo ..................... 62 6.7 Winawer et al: Russian Blues and Color Discrimination ..................................... 62 6.8 Agrillo and Roberson: Brown and Lenneberg Revisited ..................................... 63 6.9 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 64 7.0 Interpreting the Empirical Research ......................................................................... 65 7.1 The Availability hypothesis .................................................................................. 65 7.2 The Requirement Hypothesis ............................................................................... 66 7.3 The Salience Hypothesis ...................................................................................... 68 7.3.1 Language as an Aid to Thinking.................................................................... 70 8.0 The Real Lexical Whorf ........................................................................................... 73 8.1 The Central Role
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy of Linguistics
    Philosophy of Linguistics Brian Rabern Philosophy DSB 4.04c 0131 651 5178 [email protected] Geoff Pullum Linguistics DSB 2.23 0131 650 3603 [email protected] Meetings The class meetings are from 11:00 to 13:00 each Wednesday from 19th September to 28th November in Old Library 2.19, Geography building, Old Infirmary complex (weeks 1–3 and 6–11) and in 01M.469 Teaching Room 12 (Doorway 3), Medical School building. Class meetings are mandatory. Readings Required reading is to be done before the class meets; background reading to be studied as time and specific interests permit. Assessment (i) short paper (1000-1500 words) to be turned in by 5 p.m. on Monday 15th October (topics will be provided); (ii) final essay examination with choice of questions from the whole of the course. Week 1 (19th September; Old Library 2.19): Introduction What linguistics is. Linguistics as a special science. Syntax and semantics as conceived in logic. Charles Morris’s trichotomy of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Philosophy of science applied to linguistics. Required reading • Hunter, Geoffrey (1971) Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 4–13. Background reading • Stainton, Robert (2014) ‘Philosophy of linguistics’, Oxford Handbooks Online. Online at https://works.bepress.com/robertstainton/126/ Week 2 (26th September; Old Library 2.19): Language and languages The metaphysics of linguistics. The vexed question of whether language should be regarded as psychological, social, or purely abstract. The descriptive linguistics of the American structuralists and the mentalist/cognitive backlash; ‘God’s truth’ (realism) vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: the Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 761 FL 024 384 AUTHOR van Troyer, Gene TITLE Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: The Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication. PUB DATE Dec 94 NOTE 18p. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT JALT Journal; v16 n2 p163-78 Dec 1994 EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Foreign Countries; *Intercultural Communication; *Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Research Methodology; Scientific Methodology IDENTIFIERS *Sapir (Edward); Whorf (Benjamin Lee); *Whorfian Hypothesis ABSTRACT The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, long considered a factor in intercultural communication, is discussed. Empirical studies that have tended to validate the hypothesis are reviewed, and the hypothesis is then considered from the standpoint of empirical and scientific research requirements. It is shown that the hypothesis has never been formally defined for testing, and therefore does not exist as a scientifically testable thesis. As a result, all studies that have attempted to interpret empirical data accorded to the hypothesis are either flawed or invalid because they have tested something other than the hypothesis. It is concluded that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis exists only as a notion, and has no meaningful relation to intercultural communication. Includes an abstract in Japanese. Contains 22 references. (Author/MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL This document has been reproduced as HAS BE N GRANTEDBY ceived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts in Motion
    ! ! "# $ % & #''# #() (*+,(( - . / 0& /& &1 , ' ,2 &##/ # ,# & 3, ,/4 # 56/'# / & , , & , ' & / & ' , # # # & 7 '& & ' 3#/(((6,0 '# & / # 8 # 8 # & '# , ' & # '& ,% & # / # # & # ,9& / '# #' '# , 3 6, 3 & 6 # ,% / # / /& '# # 3 & '4 56'/ #/ ' # # & ' 34 56, # , ' & ,2 : # 3 6 & # '; # , / # ' &' ; 3,,/ <6,2 / ' & ' / / , ! (* 7== ,',= &< > 7 ' 777&?@* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(* 2$-@*A@*B?@A(AA 2-?((C@ % & #/(B@ Thoughts in Motion The Role of Long-Term L1 and Short-Term L2 Experience when Talking and Thinking of Caused Motion Guillermo Montero-Melis Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Doctoral Dissertation 2017 Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University Copyright: Guillermo Montero-Melis Printing: Universitetsservice AB, Stockholm 2017 Correspondence: SE 106 91 Stockholm www.biling.su.se ISBN 978-91-7649-807-1 (print) ISBN 978-91-7649-808-8 (electronic) ISSN 1400-5921 A mi abuelo Manuel Melis, por su amor al saber Acknowledgements Two persons have mainly guided my efforts. I am deeply grateful to my main advisors, Manne
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J
    Advanced Review Linguistic relativity Phillip Wolff∗ and Kevin J. Holmes The central question in research on linguistic relativity, or the Whorfian hypothesis, is whether people who speak different languages think differently. The recent resurgence of research on this question can be attributed, in part, to new insights about the ways in which language might impact thought. We identify seven categories of hypotheses about the possible effects of language on thought across a wide range of domains, including motion, color, spatial relations, number, and false belief understanding. While we do not find support for the idea that language determines the basic categories of thought or that it overwrites preexisting conceptual distinctions, we do find support for the proposal that language can make some distinctions difficult to avoid, as well as for the proposal that language can augment certain types of thinking. Further, we highlight recent evidence suggesting that language may induce a relatively schematic mode of thinking. Although the literature on linguistic relativity remains contentious, there is growing support for the view that language has a profound effect on thought. 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Cogn Sci 2010 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.104 INTRODUCTION rise to several logical paradoxes.6 However, a recent resurgence of research in this area has uncovered olk psychology tells us that human cognition subtle and intriguing interactions between language depends on language, and further, that this F and thought, leading to a number of more nuanced dependency creates differences in thought across versions of the proposal. language communities. Although often mistaken, folk psychology appears to be at least partially correct in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory Reflections: Linguistic Determinism/Relativism
    Theory Reflections: Linguistic Determinism/Relativism The Theory The theory of linguistic determinism and relativity presents a two-sided phenomenon: Does the specific language (and culture) we are exposed to in childhood determine, in fact, how we perceive the world, how we think, and how we express ourselves? If this is so, then, it must also be the case that each language (and the culture it represents) necessarily provides its speakers with a specific and differing view of that same world, a different way of thinking, and a different way of expressing. This notion is related to a parallel issue that has existed throughout the centuries—are there also universal absolutes that transcend all linguistic (and cultural) particulars? Recent research suggests there may be elements of both. Linguistic determinism came to the attention of linguists and anthropologists during the 1930s, prompted by the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Using prevailing linguistic approaches of his time, Whorf, who studied indigenous languages, found surprising contrasts with European tongues in terms of how they reflected and spoke about reality (e.g., how they segment the time continuum, construct lexical hierarchies and, in short, encode a different view of the world, or Weltanschauung). The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, as it came to be known (Sapir was his teacher), gained increasing attention and prompted the notion of language determinism/relativity. In other words, the language we are born to has a direct effect upon how we conceptualize, think, interact, and express—a direct relationship between human language and human thinking This notion has remained at the center of a debate for more than half a century.
    [Show full text]
  • Masterarbeit / Master's Thesis
    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis „Impact of language on thought and worldview, especially in the domains of time and space“ verfasst von / submitted by Keun Jun Song angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) Wien 2016 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 066 812 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Masterstudium English Language and Linguistics degree programme as it appears on the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Ritt Table of contents page Abstract………………………………….…………………………....i Acknowledgment……………………………………………………..ii List of tables…………………………………………………..……...iii List of figures…………………………………………….…………..iv 1. Introduction…………………………………………………….......1 2. Purpose of the research…………………………………………….3 3. Methodology of the research………………………………………4 4. Theory: linguistic relativity…………………………………….…..7 4.1. Advent of the theory: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis…………….……….……8 4.1.1. Sub-classification of linguistic relativity based on relevant hypotheses………………………………………………………….......13 4.1.1.1. Language as a prototype of mental activities……………….14 4.1.1.2. Linguistic determinism……………………………………..16 4.1.1.3. Thinking before language…………………………………..16 4.1.1.4. Thinking with language…………………………………….17 4.1.1.5. Thinking after language…………………………………….18 4.2. Cognitive linguistics and the theory of linguistic relativity………….…20 4.3. Language as a matrix for thought………………………………….........25 4.4. Language and worldview………………………………………..……...26 4.4.1. World-perceiving………………………………………...……….31 4.4.2. World-conceiving……………………………………………..…..32 4.4.3. Cultural mindset…………………………………………………..32 4.4.4. Personal world…………………………………………….......….35 4.4.5. Perspective………………………………………………..………36 5. Mechanism of linguistic relativity………………………….….............37 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Linguistic Determinism an Empirically Testable Hypothesis?
    Is linguistic determinism an empirically testable hypothesis? Helen De Cruz Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy University of Leuven, [email protected] This is the latest, uncorrected draft of a paper to appear in Logique & Analyse. 1 Linguistic determinism Intuitively, language seems to be an important and necessary part of our everyday thinking. Studies reporting introspective awareness indicate that people experience as much as 50 % of their thoughts in `inner speech' (Hurlburt, 1990). Language might shape cognitive processes by providing us with a structured medium to conceptualize the world, giving humans a degree of cognitive flexibility not found in other animals. This idea goes back at least to Descartes' M´editations and it appears in the work of several contemporary philosophers of mind (e.g., Carruthers, 2003). If language determines or at the very least influences cognition, we expect speakers of different languages to have divergent conceptualizations of the world|as the linguist Whorf (1956, 213) put it `We dissect nature along lines laid out by our native language'. The claims that language shapes the way we see the world, and that as a result, speakers of different languages conceptualize reality differently will here be referred to as linguistic determinism. Linguistic determinism comes both in strong versions (i.e., language determines thought entirely) and in weaker forms (i.e., language in- fluences cognition to an important extent). It has generated a substantial body of research over the past half century, though many cognitive scientists (e.g., Bloom, 2000) remain skeptical and think that language only serves a purely communicative function.
    [Show full text]
  • Dystopian Language and Thought: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English
    DePauw University Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University Student research Student Work 2014 Dystopian Language and Thought: The aS pir- Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English Kristen Fairchild Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.depauw.edu/studentresearch Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Fairchild, Kristen, "Dystopian Language and Thought: The aS pir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English" (2014). Student research. Paper 7. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student research by an authorized administrator of Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Dystopian Language and Thought: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Applied to Created Forms of English Kristen Fairchild DePauw University Honor Scholar 401-402: Senior Thesis April 11, 2014 2 3 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge and thank my three committee members for their guidance and encouragement through this process. Additionally, a special thanks to my advisor, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Ph.D, for all his extra time and support. 4 5 Introduction The genre of science fiction is a haven for the creation of new worlds, universes, and projections of the future. Many versions of the future represent dystopian societies. While the word dystopia often evokes images of hellish landscapes or militarized super-cities, the word dystopia simply implies “a dis-placement of our reality.”1 Dystopias usually originate from social or political conditions of the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Equality and Intra- As Well As Intercultural Diversity
    Research Collection Journal Article Human Equality and Intra- as Well as Intercultural Diversity Author(s): Holenstein, Elmar Publication Date: 1995 Permanent Link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000423103 Originally published in: The Monist 78(1), http://doi.org/10.5840/monist199578111 Rights / License: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information please consult the Terms of use. ETH Library HUMAN EQUALITY AND INTRA- AS WELL AS INTERCULTURAL DIVERSITY In examining the question "What is common to all people and how do they differ?" three typological stages may be distinguished: a Platonic thesis, a roman­ tic antithesis, and a current synthesis—the last a hypothesis that is advanced today in human biology and linguistic studies. 1. The Platonic Thesis The locus classicus of the Platonic thesis occurs not in Plato but in the work of his pupil, Aristotle, at the beginning of a small and probably early tract De in- terpretatione: Just as written marks are not the same for all human beings, neither are spoken sounds. But what these are in the first place signs of—affections of the soul—are the same for all; and what these affections are likenesses of—things—are also the same.1 The suggestion is that people are all concerned with the same things. They also have the same mental ideas of these things. The expression of these ideas, how­ ever, varies from culture to culture. The philosophy that underlines this view is obviously Platonic: inside and outside, being and appearance, and, in the case of language, content and expres­ sion as well as text and context, are opposites.
    [Show full text]
  • Motives of Pinker's Criticism of Whorfian
    Sławomir Wacewicz LANGUAGE AND THINKING: MOTIVES OF PINKER’S CRITICISM OF WHORFIAN LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM In The Language Instinct (1995 [1994], henceforth: TLI), a book that despite its popular character has become virtually a classic in discussions concerning the innateness of language, Steven Pinker attacks the broadly understood “Whorfian” standpoint according to which human thinking is influenced in fundamental ways by one’s native language. Due to the status of the author and popularity of the book, it is an influential voice in the ongoing debate on the mutual relation between language and “thought.” Rather than joining this debate, in the present text I would like to examine the construction and integrity of Pinker’s argumentation in TLI. I suggest that this author’s attack on broadly understood interdependence of language and thought is motivated by his general theoretical commitments, rather than by independent evidence. 1. Introduction and the reconstruction of Pinker’s initial position The best way of reconstructing Steven Pinker’s initial position is by situating his views in the general spectrum of approaches present in contemporary Cognitive Science. Pinker’s principal commitments appear to be evolutionary, which is visible in his popular reception, where he is recognised as an evolutionary psychologist much more readily than as a linguist or psycholinguist. Such a theoretical inclination often goes together with two general views: nativism and modularism; views that are separable, but related and mutually supporting. Steven Pinker is an advocate for both nativism and modularism with respect to language, as well as to cognition in general. In crudest terms, nativism is a view according to which human knowledge (or, more generally, the content of the human mind) is in some vital part innate.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle As a Name-Giver: the Cognitive Aspect of His Theory and Practice
    Aristotle as a Name-giver: The Cognitive Aspect of his Theory and Practice Maria Chriti Aristoteles in lingua graeca multa novavit adeo ut vocabulorum philosophicorum, quae etiam nunc usurpantur H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus [1870] 1955, III I. Preliminary Remarks Cognitive sciences constitute an interdisciplinary field that examines human mental functions in relation to cognition, involving psychology, philosophy, neurosciences, linguistics and other disciplines. In recent years, cognitive approaches to the humanities have started to hinge on linguistics, as well as on considerations in terms of literature, religion, perception and emotions, while cognitive aspects of classical literature, in particular, have been gaining ground, as attested by, e.g., the creation of a relative platform,1 as well as by two international conferences held in 2016.2 Cognitive linguistics, in particular, combines cognitive sciences with linguistics and concentrates on what happens in the human mind during the production and reception of language.3 This specific domain has flourished especially during the last three decades and is still in process of development: it is rather a set of approaches, 1 https://cognitiveclassics.blogs.sas.ac.uk/: It is a newly founded environment, housing cognitive classics bibliography (https://cognitiveclassics.blogs.sas.ac.uk/cognitive-classics-bibliography/). 2 In Leiden (15-16 April, 2016) “Minds on Stage: cognitive approaches to Greek tragedy” (organizers: Prof. I. Sluiter & Dr. Felix Budelmann) and in New York (October 27 and 28, 2016), “Classics and Cognitive Theory” (organizer: Prof. Peter Meineck). 3 Urgener and Schmid 2013:1–2. 1 an enterprise, than a theory with strictly prescribed methods and principles.4 Given that cognitive linguistics examines the character of language in relation to thinking, it is understandable that the field often overlaps with psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and sociolinguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Language on Thought
    Social Cognition, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1993, pp. 277-308 THE INFLUENCE OF LANGUAGE ON THOUGHT CURTIS HARDIN AND MAHZARIN R. BANAJI Yale University The mystery of language was revealed to me . Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. Helen Keller, 1903 We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. Edward Sapir, 1921 Experimental psychologists regard the hypothesis that language influences thought to be disconfirmed. In this paper, we examine (a) traditional interpreta tions of the hypothesis, (b) the basis on which the disconfirmation rests, and (c) experimental evidence supporting effects of language on memory, perception, problem-solving, and judgment. The purpose of this analysis is to question the prevalent view that the language-thought hypothesis is disconfirmed as well as to motivate renewed experimental interest, especially in the study of social cogni tion, where the social nature of thought is a primary assumption. Many who have considered the relationship between language and thought assume that language influences the way people think and behave. Experiences like Helen Keller's provide compelling anecdotal evidence that language functions as a critical tool for thought. Some philosophers have concluded that not only does language importantly constrain thought, it may largely define it (Dewey, 1929; Marx & Engels, 1846; Quine, 1960; Wittgenstein, 1953, 1980). In recent years, We are grateful to R. Bhaskar, Robert G. Crowder, Richard Gerrig, John Jost, Robert Krauss, William J. McGuire, Joan Miller, Letitia Naigles, and Alexander J. Rothman for discussions and thoughtful comments on early drafts of this article.
    [Show full text]