Transcript Linguistic Relativity - University of Rochester

Linguistic Relativity
BCS 261
4/26/04
Issues

The main question in this research is
“Does language influence our perception
and modes of thinking about the world?”

Why is this an important question?
Sapir - Whorf
“Human beings do not live in the objective
world alone, but are very much at the
mercy of the particular language which
has become the medium of expression…
the ‘real world’ is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language
habits of the group.” -Sapir as quoted by
Whorf 1941/1956
What is strong and weak relativism?
Whorf and Apache
Whorf argued that Apache doesn’t cut up events into
distinct objects or actions:
The boat is grounded on the beach.
“It is on the beach pointwise as an event of canoe
motion.”
Pinker (1984) points out that a translation of English could
be strange:
He walks.
“As solitary masculinity, leggedness proceeds.”
Relativity Myths
Hopi have not concept of time (false)
 Eskimos have 20 different words for snow
(maybe, but so does English e.g. slush,
powder, hardpack, dusting, etc..)
 Speakers of African languages with no
color words don’t perceive color (false)
 Chinese can’t understand the
counterfactual (false).

Relativity and Culture
We assume that language plays a strong role in
determining thought..
Orwell’s 1984
Euphemisms:
collateral damage - civilian casualties
downsizing - firing workers
death tax - inheritance tax
Do we think in English? Is language thought?
How could we test for it?
Strong vs. Weak Relativism

The strong version of linguistic relativity is
out….but is the weak version right?

If language doesn’t determine modes of
thought, can it influence it?
Li & Gleitman
They investigate egocentric vs allocentric
language preferences.
Languages such as tenejapa are allocentric
(e.g. uphill vs downhill)
English is egocentric (left vs. right).
Animals in a row test
What are the predictions?
Why is it important to use a non-linguistic task?
Brown & Levinson
Explanations

What alternate explanation does Li and
Gleitman posit?

How do they investigate the question?
Li & Gleitman Results
Other Evidence





Landmark tabletop cue experiment
What does the data from rat maze experiments and
infant experiments suggest?
If a difference in language doesn’t account for
differences between English and Tenejapan speakers,
what does?
To disprove relativism for location descriptors, is it
enough to show that English speakers can sometimes
act like Tenejapans?
What are some of the difficulties with any linguistic
relativity experiment?
Interpretation under ambiguity
English distinguishes between object and substance categories, but
Japanese doesn’t.
Both groups of speakers can categorize the two types of objects (e.g.
dog and water)
However, with ambiguous objects, English speakers prefer object
categorization and Japanese speakers prefer substance.
Li and Gleitman argue that this may be due too past experiences
rather than language. How might this reasoning apply to the
animals in a row test?
Boroditsky
Boroditsky argues for linguistic relativity…what
examples does she use?
 Space
 Time
 Shapes & Substances
 Object Gender
Li &Gleitman argue that the context of the
experiment must be controlled between
languages. Could the same point be made with
these experiments?
Issues




What implications does linguistic relativity have
for issues of modularity?
There’s a chicken and the egg problem in
linguistic relativity research. How do we know
that differences in perception or behavior are a
result of differences in culture or differences in
language?
Do non-linguistic aspects of cognition affect
language in interesting ways?
Are some things really untranslatable?