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