SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 17
Download to read offline
Richard S Pinner                                                                  RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                                           07/08/2009




                     A rose by any other name:
         A contemporary assessment of the
            scope of Linguistic Relativity

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis – History and definition .......................................................... 4
  A definition of thought, culture, language and „world-view‟ ............................................................... 4
  The stronger form – Linguistic Determinism ....................................................................................... 6
  The weaker form of Linguistic Relativity ............................................................................................ 8

Times have changed – a different world to view ................................................................................ 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 15




Sociolinguistics                                                           Page 1                                                                14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                        RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                 07/08/2009

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

    By any other name would smell as sweet;

Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet



If you talk to a man in a language he understands,

that goes to his head.

If you talk to him in his own language,

that goes to his heart.

Nelson Mandela


Introduction




The question of whether language shapes our view of the world has been debated over

and pondered by great thinkers for centuries. Variously associated with the names

Wilhelm von Humboldt, Franz Boas, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, the

theory that our mother tongue affects the way we see the world, that our language

influences the way we think, has been defined using several names, such as the

linguistic relativity hypothesis, linguistic determinism, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and

the Whorfian Hypothesis. Recent literature (Gumperz & Levinson 1994, Boroditsky

2006) refers to the general theory as the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRH). This

hypothesis is split into „grades‟ of strength, the strongest often referred to as

Linguistic Determinism. Sometimes, the weaker version is called Linguistic Relativity

(Pinker 1994, Wardhaugh 2002, Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007). In this essay I

will refer to the strong form, that “the structure of a language determines the way in

which speakers of that language view the world” (Wardhaugh 2002:221-222) as

linguistic determinism. The weaker form, that “the structure does not determine the



Sociolinguistics                                     Page 2                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                              RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                       07/08/2009

world-view, but is still extremely influential in predisposing speakers of a language

toward adopting a particular world-view.” (Ibid 2002:222) is referred to as the weaker

form of linguistic relativity (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007:26-27, Wardhaugh

2002, Gumperz & Levinson 1996). I will consider evidence as to which of these

forms of the hypothesis are tenable. I am particularly interested here in the

sociolinguistic implications and thus the wider context of English will feature in the

discussion. In particular, I wish to bring LRH into a contemporary setting and address

the theory in light of the modern world, in which LRH would have huge implications

if true.



Humboldt is famous for putting forward the notion of every language having

weltanschauung or „world-view‟ ([1836] cited in Slobin 1996:70). This idea was also

elaborated on by Boas, who stated that “[i]t has been claimed that the conciseness and

clearness of thought of a people depend to a great extent upon their language” ([1911]

1964:17) but those most famously associated with the theory in its strongest and

weakest forms were Sapir and especially his student Whorf. It was Whorf who took

the idea further and brought to it scientific observations and research that he had done

while working with the native American Hopi tribe. This research has been

questioned and widely discredited in academic circles, but the idea of LRH, the

question of how thought and language are dependant on each other is certainly more

relevant today than ever, in a world of such overlapping global culture. In this essay,

the contemporary setting for LRH will be a central feature. I will evaluate evidence

for and against LRH by seeing how adequately it presents a different world view for

the speakers of a given language, and in doing so show that this is a fatal flaw in the

hypothesis.


Sociolinguistics                          Page 3                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                         RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                  07/08/2009




The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis – History and definition




A definition of thought, culture, language and ‘world-view’


     ‘[T]he linguistic relativity principle’… means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different

       grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different

    evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but

                           must arrive at somewhat different views of the world.

                                                                                 Whorf ([1956] 1970:221)

To understand LRH we must first understand what is meant by the terms thought,

culture and language (Gumperz & Levinson 1996, Wardhaugh 2002). For the

purposes of this essay I will term thought as being the conceptual reference, which is

entirely internal. For Humboldt and some of the subscribers to LRH, language and

thought are inseparable (Slobin 1996),1 which I find a very loose thread in the theory.

Thought and language are very distinct. Language is, to some extent, dependent on

thought, but the two are not the same and we can have thought without language. Just

imagine the most beautiful sunset you have ever seen and you can see the evidence

for this. Also, there are human emotions between jealousy and happiness for which

there is no word in English. Imagine an ex-lover sending you a card announcing that

they are to be married. Although this could be argued to be a feeling rather than a

thought, we would be aware of the feeling and be able to recognise it. Thus, it is

possible to think and feel beyond the semantic markings of our language. Pinker

(1994:59) goes to great lengths to explain why language and thought are not the same,


1
 Despite Slobin (1996) attempting to re-brand these terms as “thinking for speaking” they are, in
essence still reliant on the idea that thought and language are inseparable.

Sociolinguistics                                     Page 4                                         14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                     RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                              07/08/2009

stating that thanks to leaps and bounds in cognitive science there is no question that

the two are separate.



Defining culture is problematic. If I define culture as simply referring to a nation or

social group, its histories, traditions and idiosyncrasies, then we are not fully

encompassing the modern world with glocalization, familiarity and integration

between culture. In this definition, people from Australia and the USA would have a

different culture, despite sharing a language, but people from India would all share

one culture despite their being some 4152 spoken languages. The Longman dictionary

of language teaching and applied linguistics defines culture as “the set of practices,

codes and values that mark a particular nation or group.” (Richards & Schmidt 2002)

This succinct definition will suffice for my purposes here, but the difficulty of

defining culture is important to bear in mind when thinking about LRH because the

world is a different place from that of Whorf and Humboldt, and culture is no longer

so clearly definable.



I shall define language as any spoken and/or written form of communication used

within a given speech community. We will revisit this definition later when we look

at issues concerning the context of English use and globalization.



World-view is perhaps the most difficult term to define as Whorf used „world-view‟

in his posthumously published collected works ([1956] 1970) without offering any




2
 Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas,
Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN

Sociolinguistics                                 Page 5                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                         RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                  07/08/2009

further definition. The anthropologist Michael Kearney (1988)3 offered the most

comprehensive for my purposes



    World View is a way of looking at reality, consisting of basic assumptions and images that provide a

          more or less coherent, though not necessarily accurate, way of thinking about the world

                                                                                          Kearney (1988)




A world-view, then, must be quite considerable in scope. It cannot be based on small

or minor differences, but on fundamental variations in a linguistic community‟s

conception of the world. I will attempt to show that under such a definition LRH

collapses utterly, especially in the context of today‟s multicultural and highly

communicative world.



With our definitions in place, we can now look at the different forms of LRH and

evaluate them with a modern perspective.




The stronger form – Linguistic Determinism



The strongest view of LRH, which I termed Linguistic Determinism, is frequently

attributed to the following, very well known lines from Whorf, that “we dissect nature

along lines laid down by our native languages.” ([1956] 1970:213) For him, language

is the “shaper of ideas” (Ibid [1956] 1970:212) Thus, in its strongest form the

hypothesis states that the way we think is a product of the language we speak. This

strong form has been linked with linguistic racism (Cameron 2003). The strong form

3
  Cited in course description for “World View” at Williamette University, which specialises in the
liberal arts http://www.willamette.edu/cla/wviews/athens/construct.htm

Sociolinguistics                                    Page 6                                          14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                              RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                       07/08/2009

could be used to suggest that certain languages, lacking words for certain concepts,

are „primitive‟ or in some way inferior to others, and that the people who speak such

languages are beneath speakers of another „more advanced‟ language. In my view

linguistic determinism is a glass-like theory, too easily seen through or shattered

altogether. “This strong Whorfian view… has long been abandoned in the field [of

psychology and language]” (Boroditsky 2001) One of the key „nails in the coffin‟ for

linguistic determinism was the work of Rosch (1975) on colour theory which found

that the Dani, whose first language has only two words for defining colours, were

easily able to learn English words and use them to differentiate between a set of

colours in the way English speakers would.



A common argument (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007, Pinker 1994) against the

strongest view is that if we could only conceive of things for which the words already

exist in our language, we would not be able to coin new words, learn second

languages, or indeed be able to learn our own language. “If we could not think about

something for which we do not have words, how would infants ever learn their first

word, much less a language?” (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007:27). However,

Gumperz and Levinson point out this is a common misreading of the hypothesis “it

was not intended to denote an exclusive causal vector in one direction - probably no

proponent has held the view that what cannot be said cannot be thought.” (Gumperz

& Levinson 1996:22). In this instance I have to agree that although Whorf states

“formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense,

but is part of a particular grammar” (Whorf, [1956] 1970:212) he does not appear to

be claiming that thought is not capable without language, but that language and




Sociolinguistics                          Page 7                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                               RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                        07/08/2009

thought become entwined and act as one. However, this is still problematic as I will

attempt to show in the next section.




The weaker form of Linguistic Relativity

The linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH), or the weaker form of the hypothesis, is

the one to which most people who agree with the theory concur (Gumperz &

Levinson 1996; Lucy 2000; Slobin 1996; Boroditsky 2001; Tohidian 2008). There are

still those who disagree with the weaker form (See Kay 1996; Pinker 1994; Pullum

1991). Lucy (1997) mentioned a lack of research and evidence for linguistic relativity,

but as Bohn (2000) points out there is, it seems a growing number of studies into the

relationship between culture and language (Konishi 1993, Slobin 1996, Boroditsky

2001). Much of this research is psychological or psycholinguistic in nature, so I will

only provide a brief summary here as my focus is on the sociolinguistic implications

of the hypothesis.



The most prominent areas of research have been into the grammatical structures of

languages, such as English which is a non-classifier language and marks plurality

with -S after regular countable nouns, against classifier languages such as Japanese.

Japanese counting has an object-shape relationship. Studies showed a “language-

specific bias” (Imai 2001:157) in the way children and adults perceived non-

individuated substances, which emerges early in language development. However,

upon looking at the results I find it hard to believe that this bias would affect the way

speakers actually conceive of objects, or that they would do so differently. It hardly

seems surprising that we would categorise things externally when prompted to do so



Sociolinguistics                           Page 8                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                               RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                        07/08/2009

using words from our own language. I don‟t see how these results adequately reflect a

different world view.



Other grammar based research looked at gender marking and time construal. Some

studies found that speakers of Spanish and German have different connotative

associations with gender marked nouns (Konishi 1993, Boroditsky 2006). The

researcher claimed the associated adjectives were more feminine or masculine

depending on the gender marking of the noun. One obvious fallacy with this

conclusion is that adjectives do not carry gender, so it is subjective to label an

adjective feminine or masculine. Gender is simply a linguistic term, and there can be

many “genders” – they do not specifically refer to male or female properties in

linguistics (Pinker 1994).



The study done into time and spatial recognition (Boroditsky 1999 & Boroditsky

2001) claims to find that because Mandarin conceptualises time vertically and English

horizontally, there is a difference in the speed of recognition when the arrangement is

reverted for the speakers, in other words English speakers were less quick to

recognise the chronology of events when they were presented in a vertical line. Also,

the position of objects was recognised more quickly if displayed from right to left or

left to right, for English and Mandarin speakers respectively. This again, seems only

natural as English speakers are more used to seeing time displayed horizontally. I

believe this can be explained by common, everyday familiarity and training rather

than „world-view‟. Although this everyday familiarity is obviously a product of

linguistic conventions, it is clearly possible for the test subjects to conceptualise time

in different ways and to recognise the conceptual cues.


Sociolinguistics                           Page 9                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                  RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                           07/08/2009




Bohn goes so far as to state that, from the perspective of a speech scientist, “linguistic

relativity is not a hypothesis, it‟s a fact.” (Bohn 2000:1) The evidence he cites for this

claim is that of perceptual patterns in phonological recognition, which apparently

show “dramatic and profound changes in the perceptual patterns [which] make infants

language-specific perceivers” (ibid: 9). However, as Bohn points out, not all studies

are conclusive on this4 and it is possible for speakers to „learn‟ to perceive and

produce phonemes outside their L1. I would go further than this and state that it does

not always require training to recognise sounds beyond one‟s own linguistic

repertoire. I was perfectly able to hear the difference between our /dz/ and the Czech

/ Ɉ/ even though I was unable to produce it without training and I had never previously

been exposed to the sound. Similarly, I have encountered many Japanese and Korean

learners who have successfully learned to produce /l/ and /r/. Even though Bohn‟s

research seems valid, the connotations ultimately do not affect semantic ranges,

although they could have implications for ELT, especially with young learners in an

EFL context outside of the target language culture because pronunciation is integral to

comprehending spoken language. Such findings are important, particularly within a

field like ELF, but once again do not constitute a different world view.



As Lucy (1997), Wardhaugh (2002) and Cameron (2003) point out, there is still not

enough evidence to fully arrive at a definite conclusion because, although there is

evidence of a cross-culture-linguistic disparity, it seems to me that the differences are

not conducive to a different way of perceiving and conceptualising the world and they

do not as such „predispose‟ us to adopt a particular „world-view‟. LRH is still an

4
 Studies by Polka & Bohn 1996 showed “no discrimination” between English and German speakers.
(Bohn 2000:9)

Sociolinguistics                              Page 10                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                         07/08/2009

interesting point, but let us now further examine it within the wider context of

contemporary society.




Times have changed – a different world to view



In the introduction to this paper I stated that I would return to the definition of

language, thought and culture. When Humboldt (1767–1835), Boas (1858–1942)

Sapir (1884–1939) and even Whorf (1897–1941) were writing they probably could

never have envisaged the world of today. We truly live in a transformed world to

those scholars. In their world, large passenger planes like the Airbus A380-800 were a

long way away, Neil Armstrong was unheard of, a Blackberry would certainly not be

a device with which one could communicate by way of video conference with a

colleague on the other side of the world.



The majority of the developed world live in constant awareness of other cultures and

languages. The reality TV show Big Brother has been replicated and broadcast in

almost seventy countries. I first became interested in Japanese culture when I watched

Manga on British television at the age of seven. My nine year old niece knows all

about Sikhism, Buddhism and even Taoism from her primary school education. The

title of Whorf‟s essay A Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Primitive

Communities (1956) would be unlikely to get published today under such a title

because it would probably be deemed politically incorrect to talk of primitive

communities (Howell 2004). We live in a world where culture and language overlap

significantly, and as I stated at the beginning of this essay, culture is hard to define.



Sociolinguistics                            Page 11                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                       RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                07/08/2009

As Whorf and Humboldt relied so heavily on the idea of weltanschauung or „world-

view,‟ this has been a central feature when I have analysed the evidence for LRH. The

idea of a different world view is fraught with complications, particularly in terms of

definition.

‘World view’ has served anthropology as a term for the philosophical dimensions of ‘cultures’ seen as

    having a degree of coherence in time and space. Today, with our confidence in the coherence,

integration, and political innocence of cultures long lost, a term from the high-water mark of bourgeois

                               'German ideology' must be problematic.

                                                                          (Hill & Mannheim 1992:381)

In using such a broad term, we see that LRH is not tenable because the small details

of linguistic variation, such as gender marking or noun classification in my opinion do

not adequately provide us with a reason to believe a given person or culture possess a

significantly different „world view.‟



I believe that under the current definition of LRH, it is not tenable. There is not

enough evidence to suggest that speakers of different languages have different views

of the world. Some re-working of the theory would be necessary for it to remain

plausible. Atomic levels of semantic representation may exist across languages, a

penguin is a penguin whether the perceiver is from Australia or Antarctica. However,

at a molecular level there may be differences in semantic structure.

Gumperz and Levinson state that if one subscribes “to the distinctions between

molecular and atomic levels of semantic representation [the two] diametrically

opposed [opinions about LRH] are entirely compatible” (Gumperz & Levinson

1996:25). This is, then, a restatement of LRH which leaves out „world-view‟ and

attempts to bring both the universalist perspective and the core linguistic differences

of LRH together. Thus they are able to “find the original idea of linguistic relativity


Sociolinguistics                                  Page 12                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                       RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                07/08/2009

still alive, but functioning in a way that is different from how it was originally

conceived.” (Ibid, 1996:2). Although very diplomatic, this idea still needs to be

further expanded for me to fully subscribe to a new theory of LRH because it is not

yet explicitly defined.


Conclusion

Thus it would seem that the obstacles to generalized thought inherent in the form of a language are of

   minor importance only, and that presumably the language alone would not prevent a people from

  advancing to more generalized forms of thinking if the general state of their culture should require

                                      expression of such thought.

                                                                                  Boas ([1911]1964:19)




Research findings in some respects, can be subjective. The evidence is there, but the

extent to which it contributes a „world view‟ is very much a choice we make based on

how much we want to agree or disagree with the theory. For Pinker, LRH exists on a

“collective suspension of disbelief” (Pinker, 1994:58) and I must agree with this view,

since LRH seems to make extremely strong statements about „world-view‟ based on

very small evidence. Boroditsky (2006) argues that this small evidence collectively

amounts to something huge, but again this is only at the molecular level. For me,

molecules are small, almost invisible components only viewed by powerful

microscopes.



Also, let us not forget that differences in „world-view‟ may not be language specific.

Consider the „world-view‟ of two native English speaking Americans, Elizabeth Ann




Sociolinguistics                                  Page 13                                        14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                          RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                   07/08/2009

Seton5 and Paris Hilton. “A culture does not provide its holders with a unified theory

of the world – a “world view” any more than a language does” Kay (1996:110).



If the theory, even in its weakest form, is true then the significance would probably be

quite large. I can see why, for a sociolinguist interested in cross-cultural issues such as

John Gumperz (see for example Gumperz, 1977, 1982) the idea of LRH is interesting

and relevant because he has studied cross-cultural misunderstandings and

communicational breakdowns. I think we need to shift LRH away from Whorf and

Humboldt, away from world view and back down into individual, molecular levels of

meaning. LRH might find more subscribers if it was used to aid cross-cultural

understanding rather than as a theory for global cross-linguistic incompatibility.

                                                                                         (3,462 Words)




5
    The first woman to be ordained a Catholic Saint

Sociolinguistics                                      Page 14                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                        RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                 07/08/2009



Bibliography

Boas, Franz (1911) Linguistics and Ethnology             Gumperz, J (1982) Language and Social
in Hymes (ed) Language in culture and                    Identity; Cambridge University Press
society; a reader in linguistics and
anthropology 1964, Harper and Row                        Hadley, G. (1997) Lexis and Culture: Bound
Publishers, New York                                     and Determined? Journal of Psycholinguistic
                                                         Research. Vol. 26. No. 4
Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (2000) Linguistic
relativity in speech perception; An overview of          Hill, J H & Mannheim, B (1992) Language
the influence of language experience on the              and World View Annual Review of
perception of speech sounds from infancy to              Anthropology, Vol. 21: 381-404
adulthood in Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven,                 http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.
René (eds) 2000 Evidence for linguistic                  1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002121
relativity
                                                         Howell Llewellyn D. March (2004)
Boroditsky, Lera (1999) Metaphoric                       "Perpetuating primitive politics". USA Today
structuring: understanding time through spatial          (Society for the Advancement of Education).
metaphors                                                FindArticles.com. 04 Apr, 2009.
Cognition 75 (2000) 1-28                                 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_
www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit                           2706_132/ai_114740984/

Boroditsky, Lera (2001) Does language shape              Imai, Mutsumi (2000) Universal ontological
thought? Mandarin and English speakers'                  knowledge and a bias toward language-specific
conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology                categories in the construal of individuation in
43(1): 1-22.                                             Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds) 2000
                                                         Evidence for linguistic relativity
Boroditsky, Lera (2006) Linguistic Relativity
Intermediate Article Massachusetts Institute of          Kay, Paul (1996) Intra-speaker relativity in
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA                Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996)
2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.                             Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge,
                                                         UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Deborah (2003) Linguistic
relativity: Benjamin Lee Whorf and the return            Kearney, Michael (1988) World View.
of the repressed Critical Quarterly, vol. 41, no.        Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp.
2
                                                         Konishi, T.(1993) The semantics of
Fromkin, V. Rodman, R. & Hyames, N.                      grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study
(2001). An introduction to Language 8th Ed:,             Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Volume
Boston: Thomson Wadsworth                                22, Number 5 / September, 1993 Pages 519-
                                                         534
Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), (2005).
Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth            Lucy, John (1997) Linguistic Relativity
edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online         Annual review of Anthropology 26: 291-312
version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp               Pinker, Steven (1994) The Language Instinct;
?name=IN                                                 New science of language and mind, Penguin
                                                         Books, London
Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996)
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge,             Polka, Linda & Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (1996) A
UK: Cambridge University Press.                          cross-language comparison of vowel
                                                         perception in English-learning and German
Gumperz, J (1977) Sociocultural knowledge in             learning infants, Journal of the Acoustical
conversational inference, in Jaworski, A &               Society of America 100: 577-592
Coupland N(eds) 1999 The Discourse Reader;
Routledge                                                Pullum, Geoff (1991) The Great Eskimo
                                                         Vocabulary Hoax, Chicago University Press,
                                                         Chicago


Sociolinguistics                                    Page 15                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                      RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                               07/08/2009


Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2002)
Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics (3rd Edition) Longman; Harlow

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of
semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.

Slobin, Dan (1996) in From "thought and
language" to "thinking for speaking" in
Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996)
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tohidian, Iman (2008) Examining Linguistic
Relativity Hypothesis as One of the Main
Views on the Relationship Between Language
and Thought Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 2009 38:65–74 DOI
10.1007/s10936-008-9083-1

Wardhaugh, Ronald (2002) An introduction to
Sociolinguistics (5th Edition) Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford

Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, thought and
reality: selected writings of Benjamin
Lee Whorf 5th Edition 1970 J . B. Carroll (ed).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Whorf, Benjamin (1956) A Linguistic
Consideration of Thinking in Primitive
Communities in Language, thought and
reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf 5th Edition 1970 J . B. Carroll. (ed)
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1997) Understanding
Cultures through Their Key Words; English,
Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese; New
York Oxford, Oxford University Press




Sociolinguistics                                  Page 16                                       14-Mar-11
Richard S Pinner                                                 RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx
                                                                                                          20/11/2008




Richard Pinner                                                                                                Page 17
Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT

More Related Content

What's hot

What is Applied Linguistics?
What is Applied Linguistics?What is Applied Linguistics?
What is Applied Linguistics?Shajaira Lopez
 
Language & power part 1
Language & power part 1Language & power part 1
Language & power part 1L Lambe
 
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisSapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisJessie Varquez
 
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguisticsSociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguisticsmehdi alba
 
Language Shift and Language Maintenance
Language Shift and Language MaintenanceLanguage Shift and Language Maintenance
Language Shift and Language Maintenancemahmud maha
 
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUF
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUFDiscourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUF
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUFأحمد يوسف
 
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of Stylistics
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of StylisticsStylistics introduction, Definitions of Stylistics
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of StylisticsAngel Ortega
 
Sapir Whorf hypothesis
Sapir Whorf hypothesisSapir Whorf hypothesis
Sapir Whorf hypothesisAhmet Ateş
 
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model Shahida
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model ShahidaLambert’S Socio Psychological Model Shahida
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model ShahidaDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Language standardization: How and why
Language standardization: How and whyLanguage standardization: How and why
Language standardization: How and whyadm-2012
 
Introduction to Soicolinguistics
Introduction to SoicolinguisticsIntroduction to Soicolinguistics
Introduction to SoicolinguisticsFarjana Ela
 
Code Switching & Codee Mixing
Code Switching & Codee MixingCode Switching & Codee Mixing
Code Switching & Codee MixingJunaid Iqbal
 
Language, culture and thought
Language, culture and thoughtLanguage, culture and thought
Language, culture and thoughtZubair A. Bajwa
 
World Englishes Final
World Englishes FinalWorld Englishes Final
World Englishes Finaltinatonio
 

What's hot (20)

What is Applied Linguistics?
What is Applied Linguistics?What is Applied Linguistics?
What is Applied Linguistics?
 
Language & power part 1
Language & power part 1Language & power part 1
Language & power part 1
 
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisSapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
 
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguisticsSociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics chapter 4 introduction to sociolinguistics
 
Language Shift and Language Maintenance
Language Shift and Language MaintenanceLanguage Shift and Language Maintenance
Language Shift and Language Maintenance
 
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUF
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUFDiscourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUF
Discourse structure chapter 4 by Ahmet YUSUF
 
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of Stylistics
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of StylisticsStylistics introduction, Definitions of Stylistics
Stylistics introduction, Definitions of Stylistics
 
Sapir Whorf hypothesis
Sapir Whorf hypothesisSapir Whorf hypothesis
Sapir Whorf hypothesis
 
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model Shahida
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model ShahidaLambert’S Socio Psychological Model Shahida
Lambert’S Socio Psychological Model Shahida
 
Language standardization: How and why
Language standardization: How and whyLanguage standardization: How and why
Language standardization: How and why
 
Sapir and Whorf
Sapir and WhorfSapir and Whorf
Sapir and Whorf
 
Introduction to Soicolinguistics
Introduction to SoicolinguisticsIntroduction to Soicolinguistics
Introduction to Soicolinguistics
 
Code Switching & Codee Mixing
Code Switching & Codee MixingCode Switching & Codee Mixing
Code Switching & Codee Mixing
 
Language, culture and thought
Language, culture and thoughtLanguage, culture and thought
Language, culture and thought
 
Presentase language attitude
Presentase language attitudePresentase language attitude
Presentase language attitude
 
language, dialect, varietes
language, dialect, varieteslanguage, dialect, varietes
language, dialect, varietes
 
Applied linguistics
Applied linguisticsApplied linguistics
Applied linguistics
 
World Englishes
World Englishes World Englishes
World Englishes
 
World Englishes Final
World Englishes FinalWorld Englishes Final
World Englishes Final
 
Linguistics imperialism
Linguistics imperialismLinguistics imperialism
Linguistics imperialism
 

Viewers also liked

Linguistics relativity
Linguistics relativityLinguistics relativity
Linguistics relativityAsty Kim
 
Semantic relativity
Semantic relativitySemantic relativity
Semantic relativityAltaf
 
Language & thought s w hypothesis
Language & thought s w hypothesisLanguage & thought s w hypothesis
Language & thought s w hypothesisBrahim Guevara
 
Ruby seen by a C# developer
Ruby seen by a C# developerRuby seen by a C# developer
Ruby seen by a C# developerEmanuele DelBono
 
Sapir whorf hypothesis
Sapir whorf hypothesis Sapir whorf hypothesis
Sapir whorf hypothesis Danish Ashraf
 
Prototypes, Prototypes, Prototypes
Prototypes, Prototypes, PrototypesPrototypes, Prototypes, Prototypes
Prototypes, Prototypes, PrototypesShane Morris
 
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016Andy Astudillo
 
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulvey
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulveySpec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulvey
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulveySouth Sefton College
 
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conduct
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conductSientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conduct
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conductBarbara Konat
 
Panorama językoznawstwa
Panorama językoznawstwaPanorama językoznawstwa
Panorama językoznawstwaBarbara Konat
 
Masters' dissertation
Masters' dissertationMasters' dissertation
Masters' dissertationManjistha Roy
 
Sociolinguistics (Paper)
Sociolinguistics (Paper)Sociolinguistics (Paper)
Sociolinguistics (Paper)Nurul Khotimah
 

Viewers also liked (18)

Linguistic relativity
Linguistic relativityLinguistic relativity
Linguistic relativity
 
Linguistics relativity
Linguistics relativityLinguistics relativity
Linguistics relativity
 
Semantic relativity
Semantic relativitySemantic relativity
Semantic relativity
 
Language & thought s w hypothesis
Language & thought s w hypothesisLanguage & thought s w hypothesis
Language & thought s w hypothesis
 
Ruby seen by a C# developer
Ruby seen by a C# developerRuby seen by a C# developer
Ruby seen by a C# developer
 
Sapir whorf
Sapir whorfSapir whorf
Sapir whorf
 
Sapir whorf hypothesis
Sapir whorf hypothesis Sapir whorf hypothesis
Sapir whorf hypothesis
 
Prototypes, Prototypes, Prototypes
Prototypes, Prototypes, PrototypesPrototypes, Prototypes, Prototypes
Prototypes, Prototypes, Prototypes
 
Test driving an MVVM App
Test driving an MVVM AppTest driving an MVVM App
Test driving an MVVM App
 
MastersThesis
MastersThesisMastersThesis
MastersThesis
 
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016
Sociolinguistics portfolio 2016
 
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulvey
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulveySpec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulvey
Spec & Resp - Lesson 11 - Laura mulvey
 
Film TV 106A Paper 2
Film TV 106A Paper 2Film TV 106A Paper 2
Film TV 106A Paper 2
 
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conduct
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conductSientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conduct
Sientific Method 5&6 The steps of the scientific conduct
 
Panorama językoznawstwa
Panorama językoznawstwaPanorama językoznawstwa
Panorama językoznawstwa
 
Relatywizm językowy
Relatywizm językowyRelatywizm językowy
Relatywizm językowy
 
Masters' dissertation
Masters' dissertationMasters' dissertation
Masters' dissertation
 
Sociolinguistics (Paper)
Sociolinguistics (Paper)Sociolinguistics (Paper)
Sociolinguistics (Paper)
 

Similar to Sociolinguistics linguistic relativity

whorfian hypothesis.
whorfian hypothesis.whorfian hypothesis.
whorfian hypothesis.Raja Khaqan
 
Language, Culture and Thought
Language, Culture and ThoughtLanguage, Culture and Thought
Language, Culture and ThoughtMutee Ur Rehman
 
Supir whorf final
Supir whorf finalSupir whorf final
Supir whorf finalflzza
 
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of LanguagePhilosophy of Language
Philosophy of LanguageSheng Nuesca
 
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdf
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdfSujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdf
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdfSujay Rao Mandavilli
 
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final final
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final finalSujay on the origin of spoken language final final final
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final finalSujay Rao Mandavilli
 
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...Ann Johnson
 
Language, Thought and Culture
Language, Thought and CultureLanguage, Thought and Culture
Language, Thought and CultureSaeed Jafari
 
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisSapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisLiz Graham
 
Language and-thought
Language and-thoughtLanguage and-thought
Language and-thoughtDanish Ashraf
 
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against It
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against ItThe Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against It
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against ItNicole Fields
 
Language and-thought
Language and-thoughtLanguage and-thought
Language and-thoughtAyman Batool
 
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...Sujay Rao Mandavilli
 
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research Paper
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research PaperBenjamin Lee Whorf Research Paper
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research PaperDebra Davis
 

Similar to Sociolinguistics linguistic relativity (20)

whorfian hypothesis.
whorfian hypothesis.whorfian hypothesis.
whorfian hypothesis.
 
Language, Culture and Thought
Language, Culture and ThoughtLanguage, Culture and Thought
Language, Culture and Thought
 
applied linguistics presentation.pptx
applied linguistics presentation.pptxapplied linguistics presentation.pptx
applied linguistics presentation.pptx
 
Supir whorf final
Supir whorf finalSupir whorf final
Supir whorf final
 
Structuralism In Linguistics
Structuralism In LinguisticsStructuralism In Linguistics
Structuralism In Linguistics
 
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of LanguagePhilosophy of Language
Philosophy of Language
 
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdf
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdfSujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdf
Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final.pdf
 
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final final
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final finalSujay on the origin of spoken language final final final
Sujay on the origin of spoken language final final final
 
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...
The Way Specific Language Is Structured Can Shape How A...
 
Language, Thought and Culture
Language, Thought and CultureLanguage, Thought and Culture
Language, Thought and Culture
 
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf HypothesisSapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
 
Week 3 LIN321
Week 3 LIN321Week 3 LIN321
Week 3 LIN321
 
Language and-thought
Language and-thoughtLanguage and-thought
Language and-thought
 
Week 3 LIN321
Week 3 LIN321Week 3 LIN321
Week 3 LIN321
 
Modern ling
Modern lingModern ling
Modern ling
 
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against It
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against ItThe Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against It
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis And Arguments For And Against It
 
Language and-thought
Language and-thoughtLanguage and-thought
Language and-thought
 
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...
Sujay Rao Mandavilli Sujay On the origin of spoken language final final final...
 
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research Paper
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research PaperBenjamin Lee Whorf Research Paper
Benjamin Lee Whorf Research Paper
 
Lecture 1 ENGL1.pdf
Lecture 1 ENGL1.pdfLecture 1 ENGL1.pdf
Lecture 1 ENGL1.pdf
 

More from Richard Pinner

Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory culture
Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory cultureMe and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory culture
Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory cultureRichard Pinner
 
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 Handout
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 HandoutUsing & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 Handout
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 HandoutRichard Pinner
 
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021Richard Pinner
 
Authenticity and Metacognition
Authenticity and MetacognitionAuthenticity and Metacognition
Authenticity and MetacognitionRichard Pinner
 
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate studentsUsing and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate studentsRichard Pinner
 
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate Students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate StudentsUsing and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate Students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate StudentsRichard Pinner
 
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and Examples
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and ExamplesHow to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and Examples
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and ExamplesRichard Pinner
 
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLILRichard Pinner
 
Prof. barbara seidlhofer
Prof. barbara seidlhoferProf. barbara seidlhofer
Prof. barbara seidlhoferRichard Pinner
 
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguaging
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguagingThe maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguaging
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguagingRichard Pinner
 
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementations
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementationsCLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementations
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementationsRichard Pinner
 
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...Richard Pinner
 
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...Richard Pinner
 
Context and Language Integrated Learning?
Context and Language Integrated Learning?Context and Language Integrated Learning?
Context and Language Integrated Learning?Richard Pinner
 
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?Richard Pinner
 
CLIL Workshop with Rosie Tanner
CLIL Workshop with Rosie TannerCLIL Workshop with Rosie Tanner
CLIL Workshop with Rosie TannerRichard Pinner
 
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017Richard Pinner
 

More from Richard Pinner (20)

Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory culture
Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory cultureMe and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory culture
Me and My Memes: EFL students’ memes and their role in participatory culture
 
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 Handout
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 HandoutUsing & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 Handout
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021 Handout
 
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021
Using & Adapting Authentic Materials To Help Motivate Students 2021
 
Authenticity and Metacognition
Authenticity and MetacognitionAuthenticity and Metacognition
Authenticity and Metacognition
 
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate studentsUsing and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to help motivate students
 
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate Students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate StudentsUsing and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate Students
Using and Adapting Authentic Materials to Motivate Students
 
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and Examples
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and ExamplesHow to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and Examples
How to Integrate Content and Language in CLIL Pedagogy Theories and Examples
 
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL
‘Concept+Language Mapping’ (CLM) as an Innovative Approach to CLIL
 
Prof. barbara seidlhofer
Prof. barbara seidlhoferProf. barbara seidlhofer
Prof. barbara seidlhofer
 
Prof. henry widdowson
Prof. henry widdowsonProf. henry widdowson
Prof. henry widdowson
 
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguaging
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguagingThe maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguaging
The maximisation of learning in CLIL by transregister and translanguaging
 
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementations
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementationsCLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementations
CLIL in general and CLIL in Japan Principles, types and implementations
 
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...
‘CLIL and EMI in the Japanese context –Is clear demarcation possible?: an ELF...
 
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...
The Meaning of 'Standard English' in Japan's English Education and its Role i...
 
Context and Language Integrated Learning?
Context and Language Integrated Learning?Context and Language Integrated Learning?
Context and Language Integrated Learning?
 
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?
EMI and CLIL and ELF: how do they relate?
 
CLIL Workshop with Rosie Tanner
CLIL Workshop with Rosie TannerCLIL Workshop with Rosie Tanner
CLIL Workshop with Rosie Tanner
 
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017
言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017
 
初習言語Clil
初習言語Clil初習言語Clil
初習言語Clil
 
English demo
English demoEnglish demo
English demo
 

Sociolinguistics linguistic relativity

  • 1. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 A rose by any other name: A contemporary assessment of the scope of Linguistic Relativity Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis – History and definition .......................................................... 4 A definition of thought, culture, language and „world-view‟ ............................................................... 4 The stronger form – Linguistic Determinism ....................................................................................... 6 The weaker form of Linguistic Relativity ............................................................................................ 8 Times have changed – a different world to view ................................................................................ 11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Sociolinguistics Page 1 14-Mar-11
  • 2. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that goes to his heart. Nelson Mandela Introduction The question of whether language shapes our view of the world has been debated over and pondered by great thinkers for centuries. Variously associated with the names Wilhelm von Humboldt, Franz Boas, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, the theory that our mother tongue affects the way we see the world, that our language influences the way we think, has been defined using several names, such as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, linguistic determinism, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the Whorfian Hypothesis. Recent literature (Gumperz & Levinson 1994, Boroditsky 2006) refers to the general theory as the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRH). This hypothesis is split into „grades‟ of strength, the strongest often referred to as Linguistic Determinism. Sometimes, the weaker version is called Linguistic Relativity (Pinker 1994, Wardhaugh 2002, Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007). In this essay I will refer to the strong form, that “the structure of a language determines the way in which speakers of that language view the world” (Wardhaugh 2002:221-222) as linguistic determinism. The weaker form, that “the structure does not determine the Sociolinguistics Page 2 14-Mar-11
  • 3. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 world-view, but is still extremely influential in predisposing speakers of a language toward adopting a particular world-view.” (Ibid 2002:222) is referred to as the weaker form of linguistic relativity (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007:26-27, Wardhaugh 2002, Gumperz & Levinson 1996). I will consider evidence as to which of these forms of the hypothesis are tenable. I am particularly interested here in the sociolinguistic implications and thus the wider context of English will feature in the discussion. In particular, I wish to bring LRH into a contemporary setting and address the theory in light of the modern world, in which LRH would have huge implications if true. Humboldt is famous for putting forward the notion of every language having weltanschauung or „world-view‟ ([1836] cited in Slobin 1996:70). This idea was also elaborated on by Boas, who stated that “[i]t has been claimed that the conciseness and clearness of thought of a people depend to a great extent upon their language” ([1911] 1964:17) but those most famously associated with the theory in its strongest and weakest forms were Sapir and especially his student Whorf. It was Whorf who took the idea further and brought to it scientific observations and research that he had done while working with the native American Hopi tribe. This research has been questioned and widely discredited in academic circles, but the idea of LRH, the question of how thought and language are dependant on each other is certainly more relevant today than ever, in a world of such overlapping global culture. In this essay, the contemporary setting for LRH will be a central feature. I will evaluate evidence for and against LRH by seeing how adequately it presents a different world view for the speakers of a given language, and in doing so show that this is a fatal flaw in the hypothesis. Sociolinguistics Page 3 14-Mar-11
  • 4. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis – History and definition A definition of thought, culture, language and ‘world-view’ ‘[T]he linguistic relativity principle’… means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. Whorf ([1956] 1970:221) To understand LRH we must first understand what is meant by the terms thought, culture and language (Gumperz & Levinson 1996, Wardhaugh 2002). For the purposes of this essay I will term thought as being the conceptual reference, which is entirely internal. For Humboldt and some of the subscribers to LRH, language and thought are inseparable (Slobin 1996),1 which I find a very loose thread in the theory. Thought and language are very distinct. Language is, to some extent, dependent on thought, but the two are not the same and we can have thought without language. Just imagine the most beautiful sunset you have ever seen and you can see the evidence for this. Also, there are human emotions between jealousy and happiness for which there is no word in English. Imagine an ex-lover sending you a card announcing that they are to be married. Although this could be argued to be a feeling rather than a thought, we would be aware of the feeling and be able to recognise it. Thus, it is possible to think and feel beyond the semantic markings of our language. Pinker (1994:59) goes to great lengths to explain why language and thought are not the same, 1 Despite Slobin (1996) attempting to re-brand these terms as “thinking for speaking” they are, in essence still reliant on the idea that thought and language are inseparable. Sociolinguistics Page 4 14-Mar-11
  • 5. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 stating that thanks to leaps and bounds in cognitive science there is no question that the two are separate. Defining culture is problematic. If I define culture as simply referring to a nation or social group, its histories, traditions and idiosyncrasies, then we are not fully encompassing the modern world with glocalization, familiarity and integration between culture. In this definition, people from Australia and the USA would have a different culture, despite sharing a language, but people from India would all share one culture despite their being some 4152 spoken languages. The Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics defines culture as “the set of practices, codes and values that mark a particular nation or group.” (Richards & Schmidt 2002) This succinct definition will suffice for my purposes here, but the difficulty of defining culture is important to bear in mind when thinking about LRH because the world is a different place from that of Whorf and Humboldt, and culture is no longer so clearly definable. I shall define language as any spoken and/or written form of communication used within a given speech community. We will revisit this definition later when we look at issues concerning the context of English use and globalization. World-view is perhaps the most difficult term to define as Whorf used „world-view‟ in his posthumously published collected works ([1956] 1970) without offering any 2 Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IN Sociolinguistics Page 5 14-Mar-11
  • 6. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 further definition. The anthropologist Michael Kearney (1988)3 offered the most comprehensive for my purposes World View is a way of looking at reality, consisting of basic assumptions and images that provide a more or less coherent, though not necessarily accurate, way of thinking about the world Kearney (1988) A world-view, then, must be quite considerable in scope. It cannot be based on small or minor differences, but on fundamental variations in a linguistic community‟s conception of the world. I will attempt to show that under such a definition LRH collapses utterly, especially in the context of today‟s multicultural and highly communicative world. With our definitions in place, we can now look at the different forms of LRH and evaluate them with a modern perspective. The stronger form – Linguistic Determinism The strongest view of LRH, which I termed Linguistic Determinism, is frequently attributed to the following, very well known lines from Whorf, that “we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages.” ([1956] 1970:213) For him, language is the “shaper of ideas” (Ibid [1956] 1970:212) Thus, in its strongest form the hypothesis states that the way we think is a product of the language we speak. This strong form has been linked with linguistic racism (Cameron 2003). The strong form 3 Cited in course description for “World View” at Williamette University, which specialises in the liberal arts http://www.willamette.edu/cla/wviews/athens/construct.htm Sociolinguistics Page 6 14-Mar-11
  • 7. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 could be used to suggest that certain languages, lacking words for certain concepts, are „primitive‟ or in some way inferior to others, and that the people who speak such languages are beneath speakers of another „more advanced‟ language. In my view linguistic determinism is a glass-like theory, too easily seen through or shattered altogether. “This strong Whorfian view… has long been abandoned in the field [of psychology and language]” (Boroditsky 2001) One of the key „nails in the coffin‟ for linguistic determinism was the work of Rosch (1975) on colour theory which found that the Dani, whose first language has only two words for defining colours, were easily able to learn English words and use them to differentiate between a set of colours in the way English speakers would. A common argument (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007, Pinker 1994) against the strongest view is that if we could only conceive of things for which the words already exist in our language, we would not be able to coin new words, learn second languages, or indeed be able to learn our own language. “If we could not think about something for which we do not have words, how would infants ever learn their first word, much less a language?” (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams 2007:27). However, Gumperz and Levinson point out this is a common misreading of the hypothesis “it was not intended to denote an exclusive causal vector in one direction - probably no proponent has held the view that what cannot be said cannot be thought.” (Gumperz & Levinson 1996:22). In this instance I have to agree that although Whorf states “formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar” (Whorf, [1956] 1970:212) he does not appear to be claiming that thought is not capable without language, but that language and Sociolinguistics Page 7 14-Mar-11
  • 8. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 thought become entwined and act as one. However, this is still problematic as I will attempt to show in the next section. The weaker form of Linguistic Relativity The linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH), or the weaker form of the hypothesis, is the one to which most people who agree with the theory concur (Gumperz & Levinson 1996; Lucy 2000; Slobin 1996; Boroditsky 2001; Tohidian 2008). There are still those who disagree with the weaker form (See Kay 1996; Pinker 1994; Pullum 1991). Lucy (1997) mentioned a lack of research and evidence for linguistic relativity, but as Bohn (2000) points out there is, it seems a growing number of studies into the relationship between culture and language (Konishi 1993, Slobin 1996, Boroditsky 2001). Much of this research is psychological or psycholinguistic in nature, so I will only provide a brief summary here as my focus is on the sociolinguistic implications of the hypothesis. The most prominent areas of research have been into the grammatical structures of languages, such as English which is a non-classifier language and marks plurality with -S after regular countable nouns, against classifier languages such as Japanese. Japanese counting has an object-shape relationship. Studies showed a “language- specific bias” (Imai 2001:157) in the way children and adults perceived non- individuated substances, which emerges early in language development. However, upon looking at the results I find it hard to believe that this bias would affect the way speakers actually conceive of objects, or that they would do so differently. It hardly seems surprising that we would categorise things externally when prompted to do so Sociolinguistics Page 8 14-Mar-11
  • 9. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 using words from our own language. I don‟t see how these results adequately reflect a different world view. Other grammar based research looked at gender marking and time construal. Some studies found that speakers of Spanish and German have different connotative associations with gender marked nouns (Konishi 1993, Boroditsky 2006). The researcher claimed the associated adjectives were more feminine or masculine depending on the gender marking of the noun. One obvious fallacy with this conclusion is that adjectives do not carry gender, so it is subjective to label an adjective feminine or masculine. Gender is simply a linguistic term, and there can be many “genders” – they do not specifically refer to male or female properties in linguistics (Pinker 1994). The study done into time and spatial recognition (Boroditsky 1999 & Boroditsky 2001) claims to find that because Mandarin conceptualises time vertically and English horizontally, there is a difference in the speed of recognition when the arrangement is reverted for the speakers, in other words English speakers were less quick to recognise the chronology of events when they were presented in a vertical line. Also, the position of objects was recognised more quickly if displayed from right to left or left to right, for English and Mandarin speakers respectively. This again, seems only natural as English speakers are more used to seeing time displayed horizontally. I believe this can be explained by common, everyday familiarity and training rather than „world-view‟. Although this everyday familiarity is obviously a product of linguistic conventions, it is clearly possible for the test subjects to conceptualise time in different ways and to recognise the conceptual cues. Sociolinguistics Page 9 14-Mar-11
  • 10. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 Bohn goes so far as to state that, from the perspective of a speech scientist, “linguistic relativity is not a hypothesis, it‟s a fact.” (Bohn 2000:1) The evidence he cites for this claim is that of perceptual patterns in phonological recognition, which apparently show “dramatic and profound changes in the perceptual patterns [which] make infants language-specific perceivers” (ibid: 9). However, as Bohn points out, not all studies are conclusive on this4 and it is possible for speakers to „learn‟ to perceive and produce phonemes outside their L1. I would go further than this and state that it does not always require training to recognise sounds beyond one‟s own linguistic repertoire. I was perfectly able to hear the difference between our /dz/ and the Czech / Ɉ/ even though I was unable to produce it without training and I had never previously been exposed to the sound. Similarly, I have encountered many Japanese and Korean learners who have successfully learned to produce /l/ and /r/. Even though Bohn‟s research seems valid, the connotations ultimately do not affect semantic ranges, although they could have implications for ELT, especially with young learners in an EFL context outside of the target language culture because pronunciation is integral to comprehending spoken language. Such findings are important, particularly within a field like ELF, but once again do not constitute a different world view. As Lucy (1997), Wardhaugh (2002) and Cameron (2003) point out, there is still not enough evidence to fully arrive at a definite conclusion because, although there is evidence of a cross-culture-linguistic disparity, it seems to me that the differences are not conducive to a different way of perceiving and conceptualising the world and they do not as such „predispose‟ us to adopt a particular „world-view‟. LRH is still an 4 Studies by Polka & Bohn 1996 showed “no discrimination” between English and German speakers. (Bohn 2000:9) Sociolinguistics Page 10 14-Mar-11
  • 11. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 interesting point, but let us now further examine it within the wider context of contemporary society. Times have changed – a different world to view In the introduction to this paper I stated that I would return to the definition of language, thought and culture. When Humboldt (1767–1835), Boas (1858–1942) Sapir (1884–1939) and even Whorf (1897–1941) were writing they probably could never have envisaged the world of today. We truly live in a transformed world to those scholars. In their world, large passenger planes like the Airbus A380-800 were a long way away, Neil Armstrong was unheard of, a Blackberry would certainly not be a device with which one could communicate by way of video conference with a colleague on the other side of the world. The majority of the developed world live in constant awareness of other cultures and languages. The reality TV show Big Brother has been replicated and broadcast in almost seventy countries. I first became interested in Japanese culture when I watched Manga on British television at the age of seven. My nine year old niece knows all about Sikhism, Buddhism and even Taoism from her primary school education. The title of Whorf‟s essay A Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Primitive Communities (1956) would be unlikely to get published today under such a title because it would probably be deemed politically incorrect to talk of primitive communities (Howell 2004). We live in a world where culture and language overlap significantly, and as I stated at the beginning of this essay, culture is hard to define. Sociolinguistics Page 11 14-Mar-11
  • 12. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 As Whorf and Humboldt relied so heavily on the idea of weltanschauung or „world- view,‟ this has been a central feature when I have analysed the evidence for LRH. The idea of a different world view is fraught with complications, particularly in terms of definition. ‘World view’ has served anthropology as a term for the philosophical dimensions of ‘cultures’ seen as having a degree of coherence in time and space. Today, with our confidence in the coherence, integration, and political innocence of cultures long lost, a term from the high-water mark of bourgeois 'German ideology' must be problematic. (Hill & Mannheim 1992:381) In using such a broad term, we see that LRH is not tenable because the small details of linguistic variation, such as gender marking or noun classification in my opinion do not adequately provide us with a reason to believe a given person or culture possess a significantly different „world view.‟ I believe that under the current definition of LRH, it is not tenable. There is not enough evidence to suggest that speakers of different languages have different views of the world. Some re-working of the theory would be necessary for it to remain plausible. Atomic levels of semantic representation may exist across languages, a penguin is a penguin whether the perceiver is from Australia or Antarctica. However, at a molecular level there may be differences in semantic structure. Gumperz and Levinson state that if one subscribes “to the distinctions between molecular and atomic levels of semantic representation [the two] diametrically opposed [opinions about LRH] are entirely compatible” (Gumperz & Levinson 1996:25). This is, then, a restatement of LRH which leaves out „world-view‟ and attempts to bring both the universalist perspective and the core linguistic differences of LRH together. Thus they are able to “find the original idea of linguistic relativity Sociolinguistics Page 12 14-Mar-11
  • 13. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 still alive, but functioning in a way that is different from how it was originally conceived.” (Ibid, 1996:2). Although very diplomatic, this idea still needs to be further expanded for me to fully subscribe to a new theory of LRH because it is not yet explicitly defined. Conclusion Thus it would seem that the obstacles to generalized thought inherent in the form of a language are of minor importance only, and that presumably the language alone would not prevent a people from advancing to more generalized forms of thinking if the general state of their culture should require expression of such thought. Boas ([1911]1964:19) Research findings in some respects, can be subjective. The evidence is there, but the extent to which it contributes a „world view‟ is very much a choice we make based on how much we want to agree or disagree with the theory. For Pinker, LRH exists on a “collective suspension of disbelief” (Pinker, 1994:58) and I must agree with this view, since LRH seems to make extremely strong statements about „world-view‟ based on very small evidence. Boroditsky (2006) argues that this small evidence collectively amounts to something huge, but again this is only at the molecular level. For me, molecules are small, almost invisible components only viewed by powerful microscopes. Also, let us not forget that differences in „world-view‟ may not be language specific. Consider the „world-view‟ of two native English speaking Americans, Elizabeth Ann Sociolinguistics Page 13 14-Mar-11
  • 14. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 Seton5 and Paris Hilton. “A culture does not provide its holders with a unified theory of the world – a “world view” any more than a language does” Kay (1996:110). If the theory, even in its weakest form, is true then the significance would probably be quite large. I can see why, for a sociolinguist interested in cross-cultural issues such as John Gumperz (see for example Gumperz, 1977, 1982) the idea of LRH is interesting and relevant because he has studied cross-cultural misunderstandings and communicational breakdowns. I think we need to shift LRH away from Whorf and Humboldt, away from world view and back down into individual, molecular levels of meaning. LRH might find more subscribers if it was used to aid cross-cultural understanding rather than as a theory for global cross-linguistic incompatibility. (3,462 Words) 5 The first woman to be ordained a Catholic Saint Sociolinguistics Page 14 14-Mar-11
  • 15. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 Bibliography Boas, Franz (1911) Linguistics and Ethnology Gumperz, J (1982) Language and Social in Hymes (ed) Language in culture and Identity; Cambridge University Press society; a reader in linguistics and anthropology 1964, Harper and Row Hadley, G. (1997) Lexis and Culture: Bound Publishers, New York and Determined? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Vol. 26. No. 4 Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (2000) Linguistic relativity in speech perception; An overview of Hill, J H & Mannheim, B (1992) Language the influence of language experience on the and World View Annual Review of perception of speech sounds from infancy to Anthropology, Vol. 21: 381-404 adulthood in Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10. René (eds) 2000 Evidence for linguistic 1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002121 relativity Howell Llewellyn D. March (2004) Boroditsky, Lera (1999) Metaphoric "Perpetuating primitive politics". USA Today structuring: understanding time through spatial (Society for the Advancement of Education). metaphors FindArticles.com. 04 Apr, 2009. Cognition 75 (2000) 1-28 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_ www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit 2706_132/ai_114740984/ Boroditsky, Lera (2001) Does language shape Imai, Mutsumi (2000) Universal ontological thought? Mandarin and English speakers' knowledge and a bias toward language-specific conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology categories in the construal of individuation in 43(1): 1-22. Niemeier, Susanne & Dirven, René (eds) 2000 Evidence for linguistic relativity Boroditsky, Lera (2006) Linguistic Relativity Intermediate Article Massachusetts Institute of Kay, Paul (1996) Intra-speaker relativity in Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, Deborah (2003) Linguistic relativity: Benjamin Lee Whorf and the return Kearney, Michael (1988) World View. of the repressed Critical Quarterly, vol. 41, no. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp. 2 Konishi, T.(1993) The semantics of Fromkin, V. Rodman, R. & Hyames, N. grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study (2001). An introduction to Language 8th Ed:, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Volume Boston: Thomson Wadsworth 22, Number 5 / September, 1993 Pages 519- 534 Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth Lucy, John (1997) Linguistic Relativity edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online Annual review of Anthropology 26: 291-312 version: http://www.ethnologue.com/. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp Pinker, Steven (1994) The Language Instinct; ?name=IN New science of language and mind, Penguin Books, London Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, Polka, Linda & Bohn, Ocke-Schwen (1996) A UK: Cambridge University Press. cross-language comparison of vowel perception in English-learning and German Gumperz, J (1977) Sociocultural knowledge in learning infants, Journal of the Acoustical conversational inference, in Jaworski, A & Society of America 100: 577-592 Coupland N(eds) 1999 The Discourse Reader; Routledge Pullum, Geoff (1991) The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, Chicago University Press, Chicago Sociolinguistics Page 15 14-Mar-11
  • 16. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 07/08/2009 Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2002) Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd Edition) Longman; Harlow Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. Slobin, Dan (1996) in From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking" in Gumperz J and Levinson S (eds) (1996) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tohidian, Iman (2008) Examining Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis as One of the Main Views on the Relationship Between Language and Thought Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2009 38:65–74 DOI 10.1007/s10936-008-9083-1 Wardhaugh, Ronald (2002) An introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th Edition) Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf 5th Edition 1970 J . B. Carroll (ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Whorf, Benjamin (1956) A Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Primitive Communities in Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf 5th Edition 1970 J . B. Carroll. (ed) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wierzbicka, Anna (1997) Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words; English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese; New York Oxford, Oxford University Press Sociolinguistics Page 16 14-Mar-11
  • 17. Richard S Pinner RPinner Sociolinguistics - Linguistic Relativity.docx 20/11/2008 Richard Pinner Page 17 Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT