1932

Abstract

How are language, thought, and reality related? Interdisciplinary research on this question over the past two decades has made significant progress. Most of the work has been Neo-Whorfian in two senses: One, it has been driven by research questions that were articulated most explicitly and most famously by the linguistic anthropologist Benjamin Lee Whorf, and two, it has limited the scope of inquiry to Whorf's narrow interpretations of the key terms “language,” “thought,” and “reality.” This article first reviews some of the ideas and results of Neo-Whorfian work, concentrating on the special role of linguistic categorization in heuristic decision making. It then considers new and potential directions in work on linguistic relativity, taken broadly to mean the ways in which the perspective offered by a given language can affect thought (or mind) and reality. New lines of work must reconsider the idea of linguistic relativity by exploring the range of available interpretations of the key terms: in particular, “language” beyond reference, “thought” beyond nonsocial processing, and “reality” beyond brute, nonsocial facts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014053
2015-10-21
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/44/1/annurev-anthro-102214-014053.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014053&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahearn L. 2001. Language and agency. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 30:109–37 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin JL. 1962. How to Do Things with Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker C. 1977. Regulators and turn-taking in American Sign Language discourse. On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language L Friedman 215–36 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  4. Bloom P, Keil FC. 2001. Thinking through language. Mind Lang. 16:351–67 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas F. 1966 (1911). Introduction. Handbook of American Indian Languages F Boas 1–79 Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Boghossian P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge London: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
  7. Boroditsky L, Schmidt L, Phillips W. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition G Dedre, S Goldin-Meadow 61–80 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowerman M, Levinson SC. 2001. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown R, Lenneberg EH. 1954. A study in language and cognition. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 49:454–62 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown RW, Copi IM, Dulaney DE, Frankena WK, Henle P, Stevenson CL. 1958. Language, Thought, and Culture Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen H, Lefebvre C. 2005. Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science Oxford, UK: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen E, Selting M. 2001. Introducing interactional linguistics. Studies in Interactional Linguistics M Selting, E Couper-Kuhlen 1–22 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft W. 2003. Typology and Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dingemanse M. 2011. Ezra Pound among the Mawu: ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. Semblance and Signification P Michelucci, O Fischer, C Ljungberg 39–54 Iconicity Lang. Lit. 10 Amsterdam: John Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  15. Dingemanse M. 2014. Making new ideophones in Siwu: creative depiction in conversation. Pragmat. Soc. 5:3384–405 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dingemanse M, Enfield NJ. 2014. Other-initiated repair across languages: towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguist. 1:96–118 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dingemanse M, Floyd S. 2014. Conversation across cultures. See Enfield et al. 2014 447–80
  18. Duranti A. 2004. Agency in language. A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology A Duranti 451–73 Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  19. Enfield NJ. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Enchrony, Agency, and Human Sociality New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Enfield NJ. 2014. Natural Causes of Language: Frames, Biases, and Cultural Transmission Berlin: Lang. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  21. Enfield NJ. 2015. The Utility of Meaning: What Words Mean and Why Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Enfield NJ, Kockelman P, Sidnell J. 2014. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Enfield NJ, Kockelman P. 2016. Distributed Agency New York: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  24. Enfield NJ, Sidnell J. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. The Social Origins of Language D Dor, C Knight, J Lewis 92–104 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans ND. 2010a. Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us Chichester, UK: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  26. Evans ND. 2010b. Semantic typology. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology JJ Song 504–33 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Everett DL. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: another look at the design features of human language. Curr. Anthropol. 464621–46 [Google Scholar]
  28. Everett DL. 2012. Language: The Cultural Tool London: Profile [Google Scholar]
  29. Everett C. 2013. Linguistic Relativity: Evidence Across Languages and Cognitive Domains Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton [Google Scholar]
  30. Friedrich P. 1979. Language, context, and the imagination. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Friedrich P. 1986. The Language Parallax Austin: Univ. Tex. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Garfinkel H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  33. Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S. 2003. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibson JJ. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Google Scholar]
  35. Gigerenzer G. 2007. Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making London: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  36. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T. 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Gilbert AL, Regier T, Kay P, Ivry RB. 2006. Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. PNAS 103:2489–94 [Google Scholar]
  38. Goddard C, Wierzbicka A. 2014. Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Anchor Books [Google Scholar]
  40. Greenberg JH. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Language JH Greenberg 73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grice HP. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Grimes J. 1996. On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science: 2 Perception K Akins 89–110 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Gumperz JJ, Levinson SC. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Hale KL. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: some Warlpiri examples. Features and Projections P Muysken, H van Riemsdijk 233–54 Dordrecht, The Neth: Foris [Google Scholar]
  45. Haun D, Rapold C, Janzen G, Levinson S. 2011. Plasticity of human spatial cognition: spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition 119:70–80 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haviland J. 1993. Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 3:13–45 [Google Scholar]
  47. Herder JG. 1992. Selected Early Works, 1764–1767 Burlington, VT: Edward Smith [Google Scholar]
  48. Heritage J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
  49. Hill JH, Mannheim B. 1992. Language and world view. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:381–406 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hopper PJ, Traugott EC. 1993. Grammaticalization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  51. von Humboldt W. 1988 (1836). On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Hymes D. 1966. Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnography). Sociolinguistics, Proc. UCLA Socioling. Conf., 1964 W Bright 114–67 The Hague: Mouton [Google Scholar]
  53. Ingold T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill London/New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  54. Jakobson R. 1960. Concluding statement: linguistics and poetics. Style in Language TA Sebeok 350–77 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Jefferson G. 2015. Talking About Troubles in Conversation New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  57. Kerr AD. 1972. Lao-English Dictionary Washington, DC: Cathol. Univ. Am. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Kockelman P. 2007. Agency: the relation between meaning, power, and knowledge. Curr. Anthropol. 48:3375–401 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kockelman P. 2010. Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  60. Kockelman P. 2013. Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and Infrastructure Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  61. Leavitt J. 2010. Linguistic Relativities: Language Diversity and Modern Thought Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Lee P. 1996. The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  63. Levinson SC. 1983. Pragmatics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. Levinson SC. 2003a. Language and mind: Let's get the issues straight. Language and Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought D Gentner, S Goldin-Meadow 25–46 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Levinson SC. 2003b. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  66. Levinson SC. 2012. Foreword. In Whorf 2012 vii–xxiii
  67. Levinson SC, Majid A. 2014. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind Lang. 29:407–27 [Google Scholar]
  68. Li P, Gleitman L. 2002. Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83:265–94 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lieberman AM. 2014. Attention-getting skills of deaf children using American Sign Language in a preschool classroom. Appl. Psycholing. 2014:1–19 [Google Scholar]
  70. Linton R. 1936. The Study of Man: An Introduction New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts [Google Scholar]
  71. Loftus EF, Palmer JC. 1974. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 13:5585–89 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lucy J. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Lucy J. 1996. The scope of linguistic relativity. See Gumperz & Levinson 1996 37–69
  74. Lucy J. 1997. Linguistic relativity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:291–312 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lupyan G. 2008. From chair to ‘chair’: a representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 137:348–69 [Google Scholar]
  76. Majid A, Bowerman M, Kita S. et al. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8:108–14 [Google Scholar]
  77. Majid A, Burenhult N. 2014. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130.2:266–70 [Google Scholar]
  78. Malt BC, Wolff P. 2010. Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Michael L. 2002. Reformulating the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: discourse, interaction, and distributed cognition. Presented at Symp. About Lang. Soc. Austin (SALSA) X: 2002, ed. I Mey, G Pizer, S His-Yao, S Szmania, Tex. Linguist. Forum, Vol. 45. Univ. Tex., Austin. http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/proceedings/2002/papers/michael.pdf [Google Scholar]
  80. McWhorter JH. 2014. The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Reines MF, Prinz J. 2009. Reviving Whorf: the return of linguistic relativity. Philos. Compass 4.6:1022–32 [Google Scholar]
  82. Riemer N. 2010. Introducing Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Roberson D, Davidoff J, Davies I, Shapiro L. 2005. Colour categories in Himba: evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cogn. Psychol. 50:378–411 [Google Scholar]
  84. Roberson D, Hanley R. 2010. Relatively speaking: an account of the relationship between language and thought in the color domain. See Malt & Wolff 2010 183–98
  85. Rosch E. 1977. Linguistic relativity. Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science501–22 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Ryle G. 1949. The Concept of Mind London: Hutchinson [Google Scholar]
  87. Sacks H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation London: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  88. Sapir E. 1949. Selected Writings Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Schegloff EA. 2006. Interaction: the infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction NJ Enfield, SC Levinson 70–96 Oxford, UK: Berg [Google Scholar]
  90. Schooler JW, Engstler-Schooler TY. 1990. Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cogn. Psychol. 22:136–71 [Google Scholar]
  91. Schultz E. 1990. Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity Madison: Univ. Wis. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Searle JR. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  93. Searle JR. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Shannon CE. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27:379–423623–56 [Google Scholar]
  95. Sherzer J. 1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. Am. Anthropol. 89:295–309 [Google Scholar]
  96. Sidnell J. 2007. Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:229–44 [Google Scholar]
  97. Sidnell J. 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Sidnell J, Barnes R. 2013. Alternative, subsequent descriptions. Conversational Repair and Human Understanding M Hayashi, G Raymond, J Sidnell 322–42 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  99. Sidnell J, Enfield NJ. 2012. Language diversity and social action. Curr. Anthropol. 53:3302–33 [Google Scholar]
  100. Sidnell J, Stivers T. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  101. Silverstein M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. Meaning in Anthropology K Basso, H Selby 11–55 Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press [Google Scholar]
  102. Silverstein M. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels P Clyne, W Hanks, C Hofbauer 193–247 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  103. Silverstein M. 1981. The limits of awareness Socioling. Work. Pap., No. 84 [Google Scholar]
  104. Silverstein M. 2014. Denotation and the pragmatics of language. See Enfield et al. 2014 128–57
  105. Simon HA. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol. Rev. 63:2129–38 [Google Scholar]
  106. Simon HA. 1983. Reason in Human Affairs Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  107. Simons DJ, Levin DT. 1997. Change blindness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1:7261–67 [Google Scholar]
  108. Stivers T, Enfield NJ, Brown P, Englert C, Hayashi M. et al. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. PNAS 106:2610587–92 [Google Scholar]
  109. Taylor JR. 2004. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  110. Webster AK. 2014. In favor of sound: linguistic relativity and Navajo poetry Presented at Symp. About Lang. Soc. Austin (SALSA) XXII: 2014, ed. M Siewert, M Ingram, B Anderson, Tex. Linguist. Forum, Vol. 57. Univ. Tex., Austin. http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/proceedings/2014/Webster.pdf [Google Scholar]
  111. Whorf BL. 2012. Language, Thought, and Reality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  112. Wierzbicka A. 1989. Baudouin De Courtenay and the theory of linguistic relativity. Jan Niecislaw Baudouin De Courtenay a Lingwistyka Swiatowa51–57 Wroclaw: Ossolineum [Google Scholar]
  113. Wilbur RB, Petitto LA. 1981. How to know a conversation when you see one: discourse structure in American Sign Language conversations. J. Natl. Stud. Speech–Lang.–Hearing Assoc. 9:66–81 [Google Scholar]
  114. Winawer J, Witthoft N, Frank M, Wu L, Wade AR, Boroditsky L. 2007. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. PNAS 104:7780–85 [Google Scholar]
  115. Wnuk E, Majid A. 2014. Revisiting the limits of language: the odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition 131:1125–38 [Google Scholar]
  116. Wolff P, Holmes KJ. 2011. Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2:3253–65 [Google Scholar]
  117. Zinken J. 2008. The metaphor of “linguistic relativity.”. Hist. Philos. Psychol. 10:21–10 [Google Scholar]
  118. Zinken J, Ogiermann E. 2011. How to propose an action as an objective necessity: the case of Polish trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 44:3263–87 [Google Scholar]
  119. Zinken J, Ogiermann E. 2013. Responsibility and action: invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46:3256–76 [Google Scholar]
  120. Zipf GK. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014053
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014053
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error