1) The document discusses language relativity and how speakers of different languages have different cultural worldviews due to differences in their linguistic and discursive practices. 2) Research in linguistic anthropology, language socialization studies and cultural psychology examines how language use shapes aspects of thinking and cultural understandings. Contextualization cues in language link what is said to cultural perceptions and interpretations. 3) Applying the concept of language relativity to research in second language acquisition can provide insights into how language learning is influenced by one's native language and culture. It avoids treating cultures as monolithic and recognizes individual and social variation.

1. Laguage ,culture and thought
Presented by
Eman Alfandi
1

2. we will discuss the follwing topics :
1-discursive relativity, or How Speakers of Different discourses (across
languages or in the same language)Have Different Cultural
Worldviews.
2-Language relativity in applied linguistic research
3-Language relativity in educational practice
4-The danger of stereotyping and prejudice
Instead of language thought –and-culture:
Speaker writers. Thinkers and members of discourse communitives
5-conclusion:the “incorrigible diversity” of applied linguistics
2

3. -The idea of verbal discursive practices affect some
aspect of thinking influencing by :
These idea underlies recent research in :
1-Linguistic anthropology
2-Language socialization studies
3-Cultur psychology
- These kind of research draws on theories that account for
interaction of mind ,language and social /cultural action in
communicative practices in every day life.
3
interpretation of the
interactional
context
Modulating
structure

4. 4
:Contextualization
to think about or provide information about the
situation in which something happens
John Gumperz has shown the importance of contextualization
cues to make sense of what is going on in conversation
“[discourse] is the nexus. the actual and social expression of
the language-culture-sociaty relationship.
*It creates and recreates ,modify and fine tunes both
culture and language and their intersection
(schezer 1987,p296]

5. Contextualization
cues :
5
Are those features of speech that
relate what is said at any time and in
any one place to knowledge
acquired through past experience to
presupposition [participant]
must rely on to maintain
conversational involvement and
assess what is intended

6. example of cues:
Phonological cues Paralinguistic
cues
Linguistics cues
•Choice of
intonation
•Stress
•pitch
•Gesture
•Facial
expressions
Choice of code
Choice of lexical
forms or
formulation of
expressions
6

7. -Those cues link what said to what is thought and how
the world perceived by the participant.
7
-Gumperz gives an example of miscommunication
between a graduate student and his informant in
an ethnographic survey, due to the inability of the
student to pick up the relevant contextualization
cues:
- Contextualization cues in the classroom:
Discourse regulation and social control functions

8. 8
The graduate student has been sent to interview a black housewife in a
low income, inner city neighborhood. The contact has been made over
the phone by someone in the office.
The student arrives, rings the bell, and is met by the
husband, who opens the door, smiles and steps towards him:
Husband : So yore going to check out ma ol lady, hah?
Interviewer : Ah no. I only came to get some information.
They called from the office.
(Husband, dropping his smile, disappears without a word and calls his
wife.)The student reports that the interview that followed was stiff and
quite unsatisfactory. Being black himself, he knew that he had “blown it”
by failing to recognize the significance of the husband’s speech style in
this particular case.
(Gumperz, 1982a, p. 133)

9. -Contextualization cues are part of a larger class of
:discourse elements called
:“indexical” or “index,”
It's the personal, social, cultural, and ideological subject
position of the speaker and require interpretation on
the part of the participants
(Gumperz, 1996).
-Indexicality is a powerful way of researching the
intersection of patterns of language use and
concomitant patterns of thought and culture.
Generally ,language as communicative practice is tied to a
person’s position in time, space, social and historical
relations, and his/her social and emotional Identity. 9

10. -How do children learn language as communicative
practice?
-In a programmatic article titled “Linguistic resources for
socializing humanity”
-Elinor Ochs examines what it takes to become “a
speaker of culture” Drawing on her fieldwork on child
language socialization in a Samoan village and her
extensive research in developmental pragmatics,she
:Found that
through language and other symbolic tools, children
and adults construct the culture they live in by
:publicly signaling 10

11.  the actions they are performing,
 the stances they are displaying,
 their evaluation of their own and others’ feelings and
beliefs,
 the social identities they put forward
 the sequence of actions, or activities, in which
they are engaged.
11

12. Language acquisition
“in a process of socialization, “a
process of assigning situational,
i.e., indexical, meaning to
particular forms (e.g., interrogative
forms, diminutive affixes, raised
pitch and the like)”
12

13. how language is as a,
symbolic system
communicative
practice,
is intimately linked to
spatial and
temporal
orientation,
the speakers’ subject
positioning vis-à-vis
these events, and
the actions taken
13
Ochs’ work brings together insights from Deacon, Lakoff, Johnson,
and Slobin

14. By focusing on activity, rather than on speaker
utterance, as the unit of analysis, Ochs is able to
closely connect the linguistic, the cognitive, and
the social in children’s development.
14

15. Language Relativity in Applied Linguistic
Research
Research on all forms of language relativity has
been carried out independently of research on
second language acquisition (SLA), which forms a
large area of the field “applied linguistics.”
15

16. * The brief survey that follows recapitulates the history
of SLA research from the perspective Of language
relativity.
-Prior to the emergence of applied linguistics in the
late fifties/early sixties, the combination of structural
linguistics and behavioral psychology led to :
- contrastive analysis approaches in language
acquisition study.
- behavioristic methods of language teaching
(repetition, habit formation, translation).
16

17. -The first cognitive revolution in educational psychology
brought about by Jerome Bruner and his colleagues in
the fifties reinstated the autonomy of the thinking
subject (Bruner, Good now, & Austin,)
- the linguistic revolution brought about by Noam
Chomsky (1957) reinstated the autonomy of the
speaking.
-thus liberating the learner from behavioral
conditioning and political manipulation.
17

18. -Both western psychology and linguistics have implicitly
adopted the rationalist, Cartesian view that :
Language reflects thought and thought is expressed
through language, but also that psychological
processes exist independently of language and of the
social activities in which language is used.
18

19. Through the eighties,
-SLA research was not interested in linguistic relativity..
-Researchers within the formal linguistic tradition
sought to discover:
1. universal aspects of second language (L2) acquisition
based on the principles of Universal Grammar.
2. its language-specific parameters,
Or universal psycholinguistic processes of L2 development.
19

20. -Researchers within the functionalist tradition of SLA
sought to discover the L2-specific rules of
communicative competence including :
1.the deployment of communicative strategies
2.the management of conversations in social
contexts.
-Researchers within the pragmatics strand of SLA
explored the realization of speech acts across
.languages
20

21. * SLA research was concerned with
1. the social context of language learning .
2. it viewed the social as a stable, pre-existing fixture,
existing outside the individual, not constructed by an
individual’s psychological and Linguistic processes.
21
*By relying on the standard (national) native speaker
as a benchmark for language acquisition, it seemed
to equate, like Herder and von Humboldt,
one language with one national community and one
national culture.

22. ”For researchers in this area of applied linguistics,
a speaker of Japanese or Hebrew is seen as a
representative of “the” Japanese or Israeli
national culture.
-“Culture” is most of the time essentialized into
monolithic national cultures on the model of
monolithic standard national languages.
22

23. * Last ten years :
The social and cultural turn in SLA within the last ten
:years
It has made the language relativity principle
more relevant in AL implicit in :
- The language socialization research,
- The sociolinguistic strands of AL
-The recent environmental or ecological theories of SLA
-The return of a phenomenological tradition of
inquiry
-The neo-Whorfian perspectives on bi- and
multilingualism
23

24. -There are initial efforts now to deal with individual,
social, and cultural variation within SLA research.
-Efforts are found
1-to avoided rigid dichotomies like
(input vs. output) (acquisition vs. learning,)
2-to replace them by more holistic concepts like
affordances, collaborative dialogue, or mediated
activity leave open the possibility of placing language
relativity at the core of language acquisition and use
(Lantolf, 2000).
24

25. :So does the recent emphasis on
-on creativity And play in language development
(Cook, 2000),
- ritual and symbolic interaction (Rampton, 2002)
- on the conceptual and subjective make up of
multilingual speakers and learners
(Pavlenko, 1999; Kramsch, forthcoming).
25
- 0n linguistic anthropology to verbal art, poetic
patterning, and the "poetic imagination.”

26. All these recent developments focus on
the way individual and collective
thoughts and sensibilities are co-
constructed, shaped, and subverted
through language as communicative
and representational practice.
26

27. From a methodological perspective,
- the principle of language relativity
suggests adopting an ecological/
Phenomenological approach to
research in applied linguistics.
Kramsch, 2002.
-However, the research reviewed above
shows that it is possible to relate language to
thought and culture in ways that adhere to the
criteria of sound and rigorous research in the
social sciences, especially in cognitive linguistics
and linguistic anthropology.
27

28. :-language relativity will require
1.taking into account phenomena that have remained too
long under the radar of applied linguistic research,
i.e., cultural knowledge and its reproduction, and
“the more chaotic and inchoate sides of language and social
life”(Hill & Mannheim, 1992, p. 398).
28
2.long-term longitudinal studies.
3.ethnographic methods of data collection,
4.cross-linguistic discourse analyses,
5.a drawing on social and cultural theories
to illuminate the relationship between macro and micro-
a research level phenomena.

29. Language Relativity in Educational Practice
The critical test of applied linguistics as a research field
is, of course, education, in the broadest sense of the
bringing about of social and cultural change.
29

30. Henry Widdowson pointed to this problem when he
wrote:
“It is the responsibility of applied linguists to consider
the criteria for an educationally relevant approach to
language” (1980, p. 86).
But what is “educationally relevant”?
30

31. Jerome Bruner answers:
“[Education] is not simply a technical business of
well-managed information processing, nor even
simply a matter of applying “learning theories” to
the classroom or using the results of subject-
centered “achievement testing.” It is a complex
pursuit of fitting a culture to the needs of its
members and their ways of knowing to the needs
of the culture. “(Bruner, 1996, p. 43)
31

32. The needs of the culture, as perceived
and formulated by teachers, school
administrators, and textbook writers and
publishers may not be the same as
those formulated by researchers, nor
is the discourse of all practitioners or
Of all researchers homogeneous.
32

33. -Culture, in an individual, as in society at large, is plural,
changing, and often conflictual. The problem here is the
conflict between the desire of the practitioner and the
constraints of the institution,
e.g., -conflict between the culture of teaching
and the culture of testing,
-conflict between the culture of the
students and the culture of native
speakers.
33

34. The conflict is expressed in three questions that can be
raised by the principle of language
relativity in educational linguistics:
First,
isn’t applied linguistic theory itself subjected to the
principle of language relativity?
-Yet such a view is only partially true, for applied linguistic
theory is multiple, even though not all theories are equal
before the laws of demand and supply on the economic
textbook market.
-Moreover if applied linguistic theory is both universally
valid and contingent upon the cultural conditions of its
enunciation, so is educational theory
34

35. Second,
isn’t educational culture inherently inhospitable to the principle of
language relativity, since its ultimate goal is to discriminate
between educated and non-educated segments of the
population through the imposition of the same formal norms to
everyone?
The reason why (non-relativistic) grammar is taught as a
formal system, apart from the fact that it is more easily
“testable,” is precisely because of a positivistic information
processing educational culture that imposes its own
rationalistic frames on what is acceptable teaching at What
level for what age group, and what is not.
35

36. -It is this educational culture that has trained
the teachers and the teacher-trainers.
-Its rationale is to be found in the historical, cultural,
political traditions of the institution.
-It is often associated with noble goals of educational
equity, objectivity, fairness, etc. in a mass education
system, but this only exacerbates the dilemma.
36

37. Third:
can language relativity be taught directly or can it only
be modeled?
:-Suggestions have been made
-To make teachers and students aware of the relevance of
the linguistic relativity principle in its Vygotskyan,
diachronic form, both with regard to their L1and the L2 :
-Teachers can show their students, for example, how the
English grammar encourages its speakers to attend to
reality in a certain way when they speak .
-They can explain the multiple ways in which “culture” is
constructed through language
37

38. 38
- They can make their syllabus, teaching methods,
and teaching goals more transparent by :
1) telling students what “culture” they have
learned
2) Learning them to talk and write in a foreign
language.
- They can take every opportunity to link language
use to a speaker’s or writer’s thought.
i.e. stance and point of view, and to link that point of view
of speakers and writers of the same national, social, or
cultural discourse community.

39. The Danger of Stereotyping and Prejudice
In an influential essay on cross-cultural rhetoric,
Robert Kaplan, 30 years ago, advanced thetheory that
speakers of different Language write according to
different rhetorical logics.
39

40. Kaplan’s views echo those of Sapir and Whorf:
“ It is apparent but not obvious that, at least “
to a very large extent, the organization of a paragraph,
written in any language by any individual who is not
a native speaker of that language, will carry the
dominant imprint of that individual’s
culturally-coded orientation to the phenomenological
world in which he lives and which he is bound to
interpret largely through the avenues available to him
in his native language.” (Kaplan, 1972, p. 1)
40

41. -In diagrams (“doodles”) that have since become
famous, Kaplan suggested that :
“each language and each culture has a[n expository]
paragraph order unique to itself, and that part of the
learning of a particular language is the mastering of
its logical system,” or of the “logos
immanent in the language” (1972, p. 63).
41

42. _Thus, the English paragraph is represented by a straight
downward arrow,
the Oriental (here Chinese and Korean, but not Japanese)
paragraph by a spiral circling toward the center.
_the Romance paragraph by a downward crooked arrow
broken up by several horizontal “digressional” plateaux.
42
The Semitic is represented by digressional down arrow
The russian paragraph is represented by a downward intermittent
arow

43. -It is the educational institution,
not the language itself, that decides what
counts as an effective “expository
paragraph” and that imposes its definition
of the genres of power on those it is charged
with schooling.
43

44. -If texts have different organizations, it is because
they have different purposes, and their
readerships have different expectations.
-Language relativity, confronts applied linguistics
with its intrinsic boundary nature between
language theory and educational practice.
44

45. Instead of Language-Thought-and-Culture:
Speakers/Writers, Thinkers, and Members
of Discourse Communities
-The principle of language relativity shifts the focus away from static
concepts like language, thought, and culture toward more dynamic
notions of speakers/writers, thinkers, and members of discourse
communities.
-Language is only one of many semiotic systems with which learners
make sense of the world expressed in a different language.
-The acquisition of another language is not an act of disembodied
cognition, but is the situated, spatially and temporally anchored, co-
construction of meaning between teachers and learners who each
carry with them their own history of experience with language and
communication.
- Culture is not one worldview, shared by all the members of a national
speech community; it is multifarious, changing, and, more often than
not, conflictual.
45

46. Language relativity suggests
1.reorienting the focus of language teachers from what
they do to who they are. Whether the language they
teach is the language they grew up with, or a foreign
language,
2.they themselves have had to grapple with language
relativity
3.It has, no doubt, put into question their own
worldview, it has made them conscious of what got
speaker and a non-native speaker.
46
.

47. 5.They have to resonate to the foreign words with the
sensibility of both a native lost in translation
6.They have to make the difference between language
relativity and moral relativism.
*The principle of language relativity enables us to
understand to a certain degree how speakers of
other languages think and what they value.
•(Geertz, 1983, p. 16).
47

48. Conclusion:
The “Incorrigible Diversity” of
Applied Linguistics
-This essay has drawn on several disciplines besides linguistics,
such as
psychology, sociology, and anthropology and new cross-
disciplinary fields like cognitive linguistics, cultural
psychology, linguistic anthropology to illuminate the
relationship of language, thought, and culture in applied
linguistics.
-The question arises as to whether the field is done a service
or a-
disservice by becoming “hybridized” to such an extent. Not
every applied linguist agrees that it is a good thing for
applied linguistics to draw o
so many feeder disciplines without the possibility of
developing aunified applied linguistic theory..
48

49. Yet, it seems that research on language as cognitive,
social, and cultural practice cannot but draw on a
multiplicity of disciplines, even though it does not
make the methodology of applied linguistics
research any easier
*Constructing a useful applied linguistics means making
the most of its incorrigible diversity. It is about cross-
pollinating different construals of linguistic, mental
and cultural reality in light of the problems of the
practice. In so doing, it just might change these
construals.
49

50. an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (eds.) (1992)
Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Ellis, R. (1986) Understanding second
language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (ed.) (1987) Second language
acquisition in context. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992) Critical
language awareness. London: Longman.
Fauconnier, G. (1985) Mental spaces:
aspects of meaning construction in natural
language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Friedrich, P. (1986) The language
parallalax: linguistic relativism and poetic
indeterminacy. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Geertz, C. (1983) Local knowledge. New
York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (2000) Available light:
anthropological reflections on philosophical
topics. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982a) Discourse strategies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (ed.) (1982b) Language and
social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992) Contextualization
and understanding. In A. Duranti &
C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context:
language as an interactive phenomenon
(pp. 229–52). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1996) The linguistic and
cultural relativity of inference. In
J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity
(pp. 374– 406). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (1996)
Rethinking linguistic relativity.
50

51. 51
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as
social semiotic. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hanks, W. (1996) Language and
communicative practices. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Herder, J. G. von ( [1772] 1960)
Sprachphilosophische Schriften.
Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Hill, J. & Mannheim, B. (1992) Language
and worldview. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 21, 381–406.
Holquist, M. (1990) Dialogism: Bakhtin
and his world. London: Routledge.
Hymes, Dell (1996) Ethnography,
linguistics, narrative inequality: toward
an understanding of voice. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E. (1995) Coconstruction:
an introduction. Research
in Language and Social Interaction, 28(3),
171–84.
Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (eds.)
(1999) The discourse reader. London:
Routledge.
Johnson, M. (1987) The body in the mind:
the bodily basis of meaning, imagination,
and reason. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1972) The anatomy of
rhetoric: prolegomena to a functional
theory of rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA:
Center for Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987) Cultural thought
patterns revisited. In U. Connor &
R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across
languages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–22).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2001) Research
methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and culture in
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998) The privilege of the
intercultural speaker. In M. Byram.
& M. Fleming (eds.), Foreign language
learning in intercultural perspective
(pp. 16–31). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

52. 52
Kramsch, C. (2001) Language, culture,
and voice in the teaching of English
as a foreign language. NovELTy. A
journal of English language teaching
and cultural studies in Hungary, 8(1),
4–21. (http://www.novelty.hu)
Kramsch, C. (2002a) Introduction: How
can we tell the dancer from the dance?
In C. Kramsch (ed.), Language
acquisition and language socialization:
ecological perspectives (pp. 1–30).
London: Continuum.
Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002b) Language
acquisition and language socialization:
ecological perspectives. London:
Continuum.
Kramsch, C. (forthcoming) The
multilingual subject. In I. de
Florio-Hansen & A. Hu (eds.),
Mehrsprachigkeit und multikulturelle
Identitaet [Multilingualism and
multicultural identity]. Tuebingen:
Stauffenburg Verlag.
Labov, W. (1972) Language in the inner
city. Philadelphia: University of
Philadelphia Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire, and
dangerous things: what categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1992) Metaphor and war:
The metaphor system used to justify
war in the Gulf. In H. Kreisler (ed.),
Confrontation in the Gulf: University of
California professors talk about the war
(pp. 1–19). Berkeley, CA: Institute of
International Studies.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980)
Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990) Talking power: the
politics of language. New York: Basic
Books.
Lakoff, R. T. (2000) The language war.
Berkeley: University of California

53. 53
Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory
and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Language
acquisition and language use from
a chaos-complexity perspective. In
C. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisition
and language socialization: ecological
perspectives (pp. 33–46). London:
Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.
(1991) Introduction to second language
acquisition research. London: Longman.
Lemke, J. (2002) Language development
and identity: Multiple timescales
in the social ecology of learning. In
C. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisition
and language socialization: ecological
perspectives (pp. 68–87). London:
Continuum.
Levinson, S. (1997) From outer to inner
space: linguistic categories and
non-linguistic thinking. In J. Nuyts
& E. Pederson (eds.), Language and
conceptualization (pp. 13–45).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1993)
How languages are learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lucy, J. (2000) Introductory comments.
In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.),
Evidence for linguistic relativity
(pp. ix–xxi). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lucy, J. & Wertsch, J. (1987) Vygotsky
and Whorf: A comparative analysis.
In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and
functional approaches to language and
thought (pp. 67–86). New York:
Academic Press.
Malinowski, B. (1923) The problem of
meaning in primitive languages.
Supplement 1 in C. K. Ogden &
I. A. Richards, The Meaning of
meaning: a study of the influence of
language upon thought and of the
science
of symbolism (pp. 451–510). London:

54. 54
Malinowski, B. (1935) Coral gardens and
their magic, vol. 2. London: Allen &
Unwin.
McNeill, R. (ed.) (1992) Hand and mind:
what gestures reveal about thought.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
McNeill, R. & Duncan, S. D. (2000)
Growth points in thinking-forspeaking.
In R. McNeill, (ed.),
Language and gesture (pp. 141–61).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Moerman, M. (1988) Talking culture:
ethnography and conversation analysis.
Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Morson, G. & Emerson, C. (1990) Mikhail
Bakhtin: creation of a prosaics. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources for
socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz
& S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking
linguistic relativity (pp. 407–37).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ochs, E. (2002) Becoming a speaker of
culture. In C. Kramsch (ed.), Language
acquisition and language socialization:
ecological perspectives (pp. 99–120).
London: Continuum.
Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (1984)
Language acquisition and
socialization: three developmental
stories. In R. A. Shweder & R. A.
LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: essays on
mind, self, and emotion (pp. 276–320).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pavlenko, A. (1999) New approaches
to concepts in bilingual memory.

55. 55
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
2(3),209–30.
Pavlenko, A. (in press) Bilingualism and
thought. In A. de Groot & J. Kroll
(eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics
of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (1998) English and the
discourses of colonialism. London:
Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical applied
linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct:
how the mind creates language. New
York: Harper & Row.
Rampton, B. (ed.) (1997) Retuning
applied linguistics. Special issue of
the International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 7(1).
Rampton, B. (2002) Ritual and foreign
language practices at school. Language
in Society, 31(4), 491–525.
Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism
(2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sapir, E. (1962) Culture, language and
personality: selected essays. Ed. David
Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Scherzer, J. (1987) A discourse-oriented
approach to language and culture.
American Anthropologist, 89(2), 295–
309.
Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (1986)
Language
socialization across cultures.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schultz, E. A. (1990) Dialogue at the
margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and linguistic
relativity. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Shore, B. (1996) Culture in mind:
cognition,
culture and the problem of meaning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1976) Shifters, linguistic
categories, & cultural description. In
K. Basso & H. Selby (eds.), Meaning in
anthropology (pp. 11–55).
Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press

56. 56
Slobin, D. I. (1996) From “thought and
language” to “thinking for speaking.”
In J. J. Gumperz & S. Levinson
(eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity
(pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (2000) Verbalized events.
A dynamic approach to linguistic
relativity and determinism. In
S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.),
Evidence for linguistic relativity
(pp. 108–38). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for second
language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A., &
Herdt, G. (eds.) (1990) Cultural
psychology: essays on comparative
human
development. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannen, D. (1998) The argument culture.
New York: Random House.
Turner, M. (1996) The literary mind: the
origins of thought and language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Lier, L. (2000) From input to
affordance: Social-interactive learning
from an ecological perspective.
In J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural
theory and second language learning
(pp. 245–60). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
(1991) The embodied mind: cognitive
science and human experience.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Von Humboldt, W. ( [1836] 1988) On
language: the diversity of human language
structure and its influence on the mental
development of mankind (trans.
P. Heath). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. ( [1934] 1962) Thought and
language. Ed. and trans. E. Hanfmann
& G. Vakar. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind and society:
the development of higher psychological

57. 57
processes (ed. M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner,
S. Scribner, & E. Souberman).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1981) The genesis of
higher
mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch
(ed.), The concept of activity in
Soviet
psychology (pp. 144 – 88). Armonk,
NY:
Sharpe.
Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) (1985) Culture,
communication and cognition:
Vygotskian perspectives.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Whorf, B. L. ( [1940] 1956)
Language,
thought, and reality: selected
writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. J. B.
Carroll.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Widdowson, H. (1980) Applied
linguistics: the pursuit of relevance.
In Robert B. Kaplan (ed.), On the
scope
of applied linguistics (pp. 74–87).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992) Semantics,
culture,
and cognition: universal human
concepts
in culture-specific configurations.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.