From Whorf to Whorf: On the development of research methodology for the study of linguistic relativity

Jolanta Latkowska

Abstract


This article presents the evolution of the principle of linguistic relativity, developed in the 1940s by the anthropological linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf. The principle, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, postulates the existence of a causal relationship between the categories of natural language and the functioning of human cognition. Currently, the hypothesis is experiencing a renaissance, facilitated by a rapid development of research technologies that enable its verification. Since it has been argued that the hypothesis’ current form does not reflect the views of its authors or does so only superficially, the article addresses these concerns by discussing the three factors that Whorf considered to be directly related to the problem, namely thought, language, and behavior, and confronts them with the accepted scientific solutions.
Generally speaking, in order to advance research, it was necessary to reformulate Whorf’s postulates as verifiable hypotheses and extend the research to include other areas of language, beyond his main focus on grammar. As new technological possibilities emerged, research gradually confined the number of tested behavioral variables to unconscious neurophysiological reactions. Since the most crucial discoveries took place in laboratory conditions, which significantly limited their scope, the need arose to (re)examine the data thus obtained in socio-cultural contexts. This signals a U-turn back to the philosophy and methodology of the authors of the relativity principle.

Keywords


linguistic relativity; thought; language; culture

Full Text:

PDF (Język Polski)

References


Athanasopoulos Panos, 2009, Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: the case of Greek blues, „Bilingualism: Language and Cognition” 12 (1), s. 83–95.

Athanasopoulos Panos, Damjanovic Ljubica, Burnand Julie i Bylund Emanuel, 2015, Learning to think in a second language: effects of proficiency and length of exposure in English learners of German, „The Modern Language Journal” 99(S1), s. 138–153.

Athanasopoulos Panos i Albright Daniel, 2016, A perceptual learning approach to the Whorfian hypothesis: supervised classification of motion, „Language Learning” 66 (3), https://doi.org/ 10.1111/lang.12180.

Athanasopoulos Panos i Bylund Emanuel, 2020, Whorf in the wild: naturalistic evidence from human interaction, „Applied Linguistics” 41(6), s. 947–970.

Athanasopoulos Panos i Casaponsa Aina, 2020, The Whorfian brain: neuroscientific approaches to linguistic relativity, „Cognitive Neuropsychology” 37(4), s. 393–412.

Brown Roger i Lenneberg Eric, 1954, A study in language and cognition, „The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology” 47(3), s. 454–462.

Bylund Emanuel i Athanasopoulos Panos, 2014, Linguistic relativity in SLA: toward a new research program, „Language Learning” 64:4, s. 952–985.

Casasanto Daniel, 2008, Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought, „Language Learning” 58, Suppl.1, s. 63–79.

Cook Vivian, Bassetti Benedetta, Kasai Chise, Sasaki Miho i Takahashi Jun Arata, 2006, Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English, „International Journal of Bilingualism ” 2, s. 137–152.

Goddard Cliff, 2003, Whorf meets Wierzbicka: variation and universals in language and thinking, „Language Sciences” 25, s. 393–432.

Han ZhaoHong i Cadierno Teresa, 2010, Preface, [w:] Linguistic Relativity in SLA. Thinking for Speaking, xi–xv, red. Han ZhaoHong i Cadierno Teresa, Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, s. 34–58.

Latkowska Jolanta, 2015, How relevant is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to contemporary psycholinguistics?, „TAPSLA” 1(1), s. 7–26.

Lee Penny, 1996, The Whorf theory complex. A critical reconstruction, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levinson Stephen, 1997, From outer to inner space: linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking, [w:] Language and conceptualization, red. Pederson Eric i Nuyts Jan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 13–45.

Levinson Stephen, 2003a, Space in language and cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson Stephen, 2003b, Language and mind: let’s get the issues straight!, [w:] Language and mind. Advances in the study of language and thought, red. Gentner Dedre i Goldin-Meadow Susan, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, s. 25–46.

Lucy John, 1992a, Language diversity and thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy John, 1992b. Grammatical categories and cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy John, 1996, The scope of linguistic relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research, [w:] Rethinking linguistic relativity, red. Gumperz John i Levinson Stephen, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 37–69.

Lucy John, 2004, Language, culture, and mind in comparative perspective, [w:] Language, culture and mind, red. Achard Michael i Kemmer Suzanne, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Lucy John, 2011, Language and cognition: the view from anthropology, [w:] Language and bilingual cognition, red. Cook Vivian i Bassetti Benedetta, Nowy Jork i Hove: Psychology Press, s. 43–68.

Lucy John, 2016, Recent advances in the study of linguistic relativity in historical context: a critical assessment, „Language Learning” 66:3, s. 487–515.

Lucy John i Gaskins Suzanne, 2003, Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences, [w:] Language and mind. Advances in the study of language and thought, red. Gentner Dedre i Goldin-Meadow Susan, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; s. 465–492.

Park Hae In, 2020, How do Korean-English bilinguals speak and think about motion events? Evidence from verbal and non-verbal tasks, „Bilingualism: Language and Cognition” 23(3), s. 483–499.

Pavlenko Aneta, 2016, Whorf’s lost argument: multilingual awareness, „Language Learning” 66:3, s. 581–607.

Pederson Eric, 2007, Cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity, [w:] The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, red. Geeraerts Dirk i Cuyckens Hubert, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 1012–1044.

Regier Terry, Kay Paul i Cook Richard, 2005, Focal colors are universal after all, „PNAS” 102 (23), s. 8386–8391.

Roberson Debie, Hanley Richard J. i Pak Hyensou, 2008, Categorical perception of colour in the left and right field is verbally mediated: evidence from Korean, „Cognition” 107, s. 752–762.

Slobin Dan Isaac, 1996, From “thought and language” to ”thinking for speaking”, [w:] Rethinking linguistic relativity, red. Gumperz John i Levinson Stephen, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 70–96.

Tan Li Hai, Alice Chan, Paul Kay, Pek-Lan Khong, Lawrence Yip i Kang-Kwong Luke, 2008, Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision, „PNAS” 15 (10), s. 4004–4009.

Thierry Guillaume, 2016, Neurolinguistic relativity: how language flexes human perception and cognition, „Language Learning” 66:3, s. 690–713.

Thierry Guillaume, Athanasopoulos Panos, Wiggett Alison, Dering Benjamin i Kuipers Jan-Rouke, 2009, Unconscious effects of language-specific terminology on preattentive color perception, „PNAS” 106(11), s. 4567–4570.

Whorf Benjamin Lee, 1956, Language, thought, and reality, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Winawer Jonathan, Nathan Witthoft, Michael C. Frank, Lisa Wu i Boroditsky Lera, 2007, Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination, „PNAS”, http://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0701644104.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/et.2023.35.89
Date of publication: 2023-08-31 13:19:45
Date of submission: 2022-07-28 16:51:40


Statistics


Total abstract view - 396
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF (Język Polski) - 187

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Jolanta Latkowska

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.