This term paper deals with different approaches in linguistic relativity research, proving the thesis that the question whether linguistic relativity does or does not exist cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but that the answer lies in between.
The theoretical framework will be provided by an overview of the theory of linguistic relativity, whose history of origins will be introduced briefly in the beginning, followed by a review of its criticism. Subsequently, two studies will be presented and interpreted, one trying to prove and one trying to disprove the hypothesis
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis – a Short History of a Controversial Theory
II.1 The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis
II.2 Review of the Theory of Linguistic Relativity
III. Opposing and Supporting Linguistic Relativity – Two Studies
III.1 Disproving Linguistic Relativity: Altarriba/Tse (2008) in response to Boroditsky (2001) and January/Kako (2007)
III.1.1 Design and Method
III.1.2 Results
III.1.3 Discussion and Conclusion
III.1.4 Interpretation
III.2 Proving Linguistic Relativity: Boroditsky/Gaby (2010)
III.2.1 Design and Method
III.2.2 Results
III.2.3 Discussion and Conclusion
III.2.4 Interpretation
IV. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the validity of the linguistic relativity hypothesis, which posits that language influences thought. The central research question explores whether language dictates perception or merely influences it, by examining two contrasting psychological studies that either support or disprove this theory.
- History and development of the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis.
- Methodological critique of spatial-temporal metaphor studies.
- Analysis of Altarriba/Tse (2008) regarding horizontal vs. vertical bias.
- Examination of Boroditsky/Gaby (2010) and absolute spatial representations in Pormpuraaw.
- Evaluation of the extent to which language shapes cognition versus non-linguistic processes.
Excerpt from the Book
III.1.4 Interpretation
Altarriba/Tse's findings oppose linguistic relativity theory because their study shows that, regardless of the circumstance (e.g., the kind of prime), both English monolinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals show vertical spatial bias when talking about time. In my eyes, the great difference in the results of Boroditsky (2001) and Altarriba/Tse (2008) raises important questions: How reliable is either of the studies? Would Boroditsky be more convincing if she had taken traditional Chinese metaphor usage into account? Would the latter have changed the results, or would it not matter at all? Also, a general objection regarding this kind of studies made by skeptic McWhorter comes to mind – in the following quote he talks about a millisecond reaction delay in a color study with Russian native speakers:
"[U]pon what grounds are we to take a 124-millisecond difference I reaction time as signaling something about the way Russians experience life? Language affects thought? Apparently so, but as with so much in life, the issue is degree" (McWhorter 2014, p. 10).
Although such small differences matter in the context of this kind of research, McWhorter has a point. Nevertheless, despite these questions and objections, the assumption that the vertical design of calendars might be an influence on how we think about time is, in my eyes, a key to the interpretation of Altarriba/Tse's study, because this thought can be interpreted either in favor of their results or as a rebound to their disadvantage: either language was originally responsible for how calendars were designed in the first place, or our language, and our thinking about time, adapted to the example of calendars. To answer this question, the history of calendars would have to be researched and compared to the etymological origins of the vertical spatial terms used to refer to temporal order.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the historical and philosophical debate surrounding linguistic relativity and defines the scope of the paper.
II. The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis – a Short History of a Controversial Theory: Provides a background on the origins of linguistic relativity from 18th-century romanticism through the work of Sapir and Whorf.
II.1 The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis: Explains the conceptual shift from linguistic relativity to linguistic determinism.
II.2 Review of the Theory of Linguistic Relativity: Discusses the transition from popular support to heavy criticism of the theory in the 20th century.
III. Opposing and Supporting Linguistic Relativity – Two Studies: Introduces the two primary empirical studies used to demonstrate the conflicting evidence for the hypothesis.
III.1 Disproving Linguistic Relativity: Altarriba/Tse (2008) in response to Boroditsky (2001) and January/Kako (2007): Describes the methodological replication study that challenges previous findings regarding spatial metaphors.
III.1.1 Design and Method: Details the experimental setup, participant groups, and tasks used to challenge Boroditsky’s original findings.
III.1.2 Results: Reports on the reaction times and vertical biases observed during the study.
III.1.3 Discussion and Conclusion: Evaluates the evidence against linguistic relativity based on the experiment's findings.
III.1.4 Interpretation: Critically reflects on the validity of the results and the potential influence of cultural tools like calendars.
III.2 Proving Linguistic Relativity: Boroditsky/Gaby (2010): Presents the research on the Pormpuraaw language and its influence on the perception of time.
III.2.1 Design and Method: Describes the testing of Pormpuraawans and Americans using card-sorting tasks.
III.2.2 Results: Compares the card-arrangement preferences between the two cultural groups.
III.2.3 Discussion and Conclusion: Analyzes how absolute spatial orientation impacts temporal cognition.
III.2.4 Interpretation: Concludes that language structure influences cognitive patterns in relation to cardinal directions.
IV. Conclusion: Synthesizes the evidence, concluding that language influences thought to a certain degree, but not in an absolute, deterministic manner.
Keywords
Linguistic Relativity, Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, Linguistic Determinism, Cognitive Linguistics, Spatial Metaphors, Temporal Perception, Boroditsky, Pormpuraaw, Altarriba, Chinese-English Bilinguals, Cognitive Domains, Language and Thought, Language Structure, Empirical Linguistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the theory of linguistic relativity, which explores whether the structure of a language influences the way its speakers perceive and think about the world.
What are the central thematic areas?
The work focuses on the history of the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, the debate between linguistic determinism and relativity, and empirical cognitive research regarding spatial metaphors.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if linguistic relativity can be proven or disproven by evaluating two contradictory experimental studies on spatial and temporal metaphors.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative analysis of experimental psychological studies, focusing on sentence verification tasks and card-sorting experiments.
What is addressed in the main body of the paper?
The main body critiques the methodology and findings of Altarriba/Tse (2008) and Boroditsky/Gaby (2010), interpreting how these studies shape the debate on linguistic influence.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include linguistic relativity, Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, cognitive linguistics, spatial metaphors, and empirical cognitive research.
How does Altarriba/Tse's study challenge the linguistic relativity hypothesis?
Their study suggests that the observed biases are independent of the speaker's native language, indicating that cultural factors like calendar design might play a larger role than language.
Why are Pormpuraaw speakers important to this research?
They are significant because their language requires constant awareness of cardinal directions, which directly impacts their mental representation of time compared to English speakers who use relative spatial terms.
What is the author's final conclusion?
The author concludes that language does influence thought, but not exclusively; it is a balance between innate cognitive processes and linguistic framing.
- Quote paper
- Lena Hahner (Author), 2016, Testing Linguistic Relativity. The Rediscovery of a Controversial Theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/358436
