A Proposed Solution to The Linguistic Relativity (Sapir–Whorf) Hypothesis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
The question of whether human language plays a constitutive role in shaping human thought, or merely dresses up pre-formed thoughts—thus occupying a secondary role in the constitution of thought—has occupied scientists and philosophers of language and mind for centuries. The present paper undertakes a philosophical investigation of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and seeks to dispel certain confusions surrounding it. It is demonstrated that human language is both an inseparable component of human psychology (a cognitive mechanism) and an indispensable part of the social practices in which humans participate (a social tool, a technology that each culture uses creatively). The distinction between language as a cognitive–semiotic system and as a culture specific-national constituent is crucial when we investigate linguistic relativity. Ultimately, language coordinates, influences, and directs thought and psychological processes; it also constitutes and reproduces culture, helping it to evolve.
Downloads
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2021). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. California: University of California Press.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times East: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological science, 21(11), 1635-1639.
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79). MIT Press.
Casasanto, D., Boroditsky, L., Phillips, W., Greene, J., Goswami, S., Bocanegra-Thiel, S., Santiago-Diaz, I., Fotokopoulu, O., Pita, R., & Gil, D. (2004). How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 575–580). Cognitive Science Society.
Christidis, A.-F. (2002). Όψεις της γλώσσας [Opseis tis glossas]. Athina: Nisos.
Dalimier, C. (Trans.). (1998). Platon: Cratyle (Garnier Flammarion 954). Paris: Flammarion.
De Mauro, T. (2019). Mini-semantica [Mini-semantics]. Laterza: Laterza.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Everett, D. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity's greatest invention. London: Profile Books.
Everett, D. L. (2008). Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York: Pantheon Books.
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and punishment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650.
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306(5695), 499–503.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking Press.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/409588
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1997). Linguistic relativity: A critical overview. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 117–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42(6), 229–231, 247–248.
Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(19), 7780–7785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in our journal are licensed under CC-BY 4.0, which permits authors to retain copyright of their work. This license allows for unrestricted use, sharing, and reproduction of the articles, provided that proper credit is given to the original authors and the source.