The language relativity hypothesis (henceforth LRH) is founded in the problem that languages express thoughts in certain ways, defined by vocabulary and grammatical rules. As the vocabulary and grammar differ across languages, it follows that these ways differ between languages; furthermore, as these methods differ across languages the ideas they express must also differ. This suggests that ‘speakers of different languages must have different ways of thinking about the world’ (Boroditsky, 2003; 917), that the language we use in some way restricts our thought. Whilst it is obvious that there are a huge number of entirely trivial examples of LRH, such as how jokes or metaphors work in some languages but not others, for LRH to have any real psychological significance there must be systematic differences between languages on more central themes of thought, differences that constitute a restriction rather than a mere inclination. With this in mind, this essay shall consider whether LRH has been supported through study into linguistic effects on the conception of colours, space, time and object classification.
Original Title
Critically Evaluate the Language Relativity Hypothesis
The language relativity hypothesis (henceforth LRH) is founded in the problem that languages express thoughts in certain ways, defined by vocabulary and grammatical rules. As the vocabulary and grammar differ across languages, it follows that these ways differ between languages; furthermore, as these methods differ across languages the ideas they express must also differ. This suggests that ‘speakers of different languages must have different ways of thinking about the world’ (Boroditsky, 2003; 917), that the language we use in some way restricts our thought. Whilst it is obvious that there are a huge number of entirely trivial examples of LRH, such as how jokes or metaphors work in some languages but not others, for LRH to have any real psychological significance there must be systematic differences between languages on more central themes of thought, differences that constitute a restriction rather than a mere inclination. With this in mind, this essay shall consider whether LRH has been supported through study into linguistic effects on the conception of colours, space, time and object classification.
The language relativity hypothesis (henceforth LRH) is founded in the problem that languages express thoughts in certain ways, defined by vocabulary and grammatical rules. As the vocabulary and grammar differ across languages, it follows that these ways differ between languages; furthermore, as these methods differ across languages the ideas they express must also differ. This suggests that ‘speakers of different languages must have different ways of thinking about the world’ (Boroditsky, 2003; 917), that the language we use in some way restricts our thought. Whilst it is obvious that there are a huge number of entirely trivial examples of LRH, such as how jokes or metaphors work in some languages but not others, for LRH to have any real psychological significance there must be systematic differences between languages on more central themes of thought, differences that constitute a restriction rather than a mere inclination. With this in mind, this essay shall consider whether LRH has been supported through study into linguistic effects on the conception of colours, space, time and object classification.
Critically evaluate the language relativity hypothesis
The language relativity hypothesis (henceforth LRH) is founded in
the problem that languages express thoughts in certain ways, defined by vocabulary and grammatical rules. As the vocabulary and grammar differ across languages, it follows that these ways differ between languages; furthermore, as these methods differ across languages the ideas they express must also differ. This suggests that ‘speakers of different languages must have different ways of thinking about the world’ (Boroditsky, 2003; 917), that the language we use in some way restricts our thought. Whilst it is obvious that there are a huge number of entirely trivial examples of LRH, such as how jokes or metaphors work in some languages but not others, for LRH to have any real psychological significance there must be systematic differences between languages on more central themes of thought, differences that constitute a restriction rather than a mere inclination. With this in mind, this essay shall consider whether LRH has been supported through study into linguistic effects on the conception of colours, space, time and object classification. Heider’s 1972 work on the semantic categories of colour names in the Dani tribe of West New Guinea appears to strongly support the LRH. Using Munsell Colour chips, Heider found that the Dani held two colour concepts unlike any previously reported, ‘mili’ and ‘mola’. These terms are unique as they do not describe either brightness or hue individually, but a combination of the two. Heider describes this well through a ‘spatial metaphor’ where ‘the colour space is pictured as a three-dimensional cylinder, its circumference widest at the centre and becoming progressively restricted towards each end (the black and white poles)’ (pp. 461). The Dani-specific colour terms focus on ‘the areas of that cylinder most distant from each other’ (pp. 461); potentially providing a more descriptive range of colour terms than a linguistic system that divides the cylinder solely into light and dark along its length. There are few concrete premises that can be taken from this study, but it does clearly show that the Dani have different methods of describing colours than most other languages, from which it follows that they also think about colours differently. However, this cannot be taken as evidence for the importance of LRH, it cannot be taken as evidence that these differences in terms restrict thinking. Heider’s results show that the Dani are not unanimous in their usage of colour terms; for example, when asked which chip was the best example of ‘mola’ most Dani chose a dark red, but some chose a light pink. Furthermore, those that suggested the best example of mola was a dark red were ‘equally likely to acknowledge or deny the existence of a ‘red’ term’ (pp. 464), which suggests the ‘red’ category was developing within the language. This and other intra- cultural variation in category names strongly suggest that the language is still evolving (Heider, 1972; for further examples see pp. 463-4). If this evolution in colour terms is caused entirely by intra-cultural factors then language cannot be completely deterministic of thought. Heider gives three distinct reasons why contact with other cultures is an ‘unlikely explanation’ (pp. 464) for this evolution. Firstly, the Dani have had little contact with other cultures; furthermore those that have did not use more chromatic colour names than those Dani who had not. Secondly, only the Dani who used the native term ‘pimut’ used the synonymous foreign term ‘boksu’ to describe a kind of unsaturated red, suggesting inter-cultural contact has little effect. Finally, Heider found no examples of the usage of Indonesian colour terms. Thus, the variation must be caused by intra-cultural factors, which suggests that language does not restrict thought as LRH suggests; the language of the Dani may cause them to be inclined towards a certain mode of thinking, but not restricted. In terms of spatial reasoning, allocentric and egocentric differences have been observed between speakers of different languages, most notably in Pederson et al. (1998). In their study, an ‘animals in a row’ task was performed, in which participants were presented with a table upon which a small number of animals were arranged. The participants were asked to turn round 180° and to position the animals ‘in the same way as before’ on another table that previously was behind them. It was found that speakers of languages that most commonly used an egocentric method of spatial reasoning, in this case Dutch, would arrange the animals in the same order from the participants own perspective, whilst speakers of languages that most commonly reasoned allocentrically, in this case Tzeltal, would arrange the animals in the same order ignoring the change in their own perspective. These results certainly support the idea that the participants thinking was influenced by their language, however, this does not entail that they are restricted by such methods. It is surely a trivial fact that if a speaker is used to using a certain method they are more likely to use that method than another when describing spatial relationships between objects regardless of language. Evidence that language truly restricts thought could potentially be found through an experiment that focused upon restriction rather than mere instance. To clarify, study would be well directed at whether speakers of a predominantly allocentric language find it harder to arrange items egocentrically and vice versa, rather than merely that they are more inclined to perform one or the other, the current study only shows inclination, not restriction. However, a Dutch speaker is unlikely to have any more difficulty arranging the animals allocentrically when specifically asked to, and by the same token a Tzeltal speaker is unlikely to have any more difficulty in arranging the animals egocentrically when specifically asked to do so. The systematic difference found by the trial merely highlights that there are two different types of reasoning by which the reordering of the animals can be performed, and that participants are likely to use the method most familiar to them when ambiguously asked to arrange the animals ‘in the same way as before’ (pp. 270). This question is ambiguous as it requires but does not define a viewpoint, to say that things are in the same order as before is to say that they are arranged in the same manner according to a certain viewpoint; to ask a participant to arrange the animals as before either allocentrically or egocentrically will not require them to learn a new word nor is it likely that either method will be found more difficult. For example, an English speaker will surely be just as competent at completing the task when asked to ‘arrange the animals in the same way as before, relative to your own perspective’ as when asked to ‘arrange the animals in the same way as before, ignoring the change in your own perspective’. Thus, the overall choices the two groups of participants make when faced with the ambiguous question may be definable by the differences between their languages, but this does not entail that their languages restrict their thought, it merely entails that their thought may be guided through ambiguity by their language. Again, whilst this supports the existence of LRH, it also supports its triviality. Perhaps a study could be performed into whether this instance of LRH is correlated with attributional styles, such a finding would show the LRH to have important effects on thinking rather than just trivial tendencies of thinking. Most, if not all, languages make use of unidirectional spatial terms to describe the passage of time (Boroditsky, 2001), ‘ahead/behind’ and ‘up/down’ (pp. 4) being the most notable examples. However, the use of solely spatial terms means that languages are only able to describe our physical experience of time; furthermore, these terms both specify and restrict the ways that we can express our experience of time. In her 2001, Boroditsky performs three experiments that focus upon the difference in thought about time between speakers of English and Mandarin. Both groups can use either set of directional terms to describe the passage of time, but the use of up/down terms in English is no where near as ‘common or systematic’ (pp. 5) as in Mandarin. Thus, Boroditsky’s question is whether the linguistic bias of Mandarin causes speakers of Mandarin to be biased in the way they think about the passage of time. To briefly summarise a fantastic piece of experimental research, Boroditsky found that English speakers were biased to think about time horizontally, whilst Mandarin speakers were biased to think about time vertically, even when the test was in English and utilized purely temporal terms such as earlier/later rather than spatial terms. In the second experiment it was found that native mandarin speakers we less likely to display bias if they had started learning English at an earlier age, and that the length of time they had been learning was inconsequential. Finally in experiment three Boroditsky observed that English speakers could be easily trained to think of time vertically just as Mandarin speakers did. In these experiments Boroditsky has clearly found evidence that supports the LRH; it is clear that the habitual differences in the description of the passage of time causes speakers of English and Mandarin to habitually think about the passage of time in a different way. However, although the results support the hypothetical theory, they do not suggest that it is non-trivial. Whether an individual thinks of time as moving vertically or horizontally has no effect on the use they can make of the concept; both groups still perceive time as moving unidirectionally along a continuum, thus there is no real restriction imposed by the language. As Boroditsky herself states, ‘those aspects not constrained by our physical experience with time are free to vary across languages and our conceptions of them may be shaped by the way we choose to talk about them’ (pp. 4), suggesting that non-trivial examples of LRH are unlikely to exist. The difference in thought that Boroditsky uncovers is merely a semantic quirk brought about through the logical application of a unidirectional term, time, arbitrarily to either the vertical or horizontal continuum. However, not all potential instances of LRH are so trivial. Object classification by gender is one of these examples. Grammatical gender assignment is arbitrary, not least shown by the fact that it arbitrarily varies across languages. Thus, if speakers of different languages that have different gender classifications think about the objects in a different way, then LRH is vindicated; if it can be shown that the speakers of languages that have such gender classifications ascribe qualities to such objects in correlation with their gender type, then it appears that this must be due to the language they use rather than any intrinsic qualities of the object itself. A fine example of such correlation can be found in Boroditsky (2003), where Spanish and German speakers were asked to rate the similarities between pictures of people, both males and females, and objects that had opposite genders in each language. The test was performed in English, a language without systematic gender classification, to ensure its non- linguistic nature. Both groups rated the objects according to their languages grammatical classifications; furthermore, when asked to describe, for example, a ‘key,’ German speakers tended to ascribe masculine words such as ‘hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated and useful’ in accordance with German gender classifications, whilst Spanish speakers were more likely to use feminine words such as ‘golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny and tiny’ in accordance with Spanish gender classifications. In summary, the study of Dani colour names suggests the LRH is actually false due to the intra-cultural variation in terms. However, this is surely because the Dani language is still developing, and as such is not systematic or well established enough to systematically restrict thought. As Boroditsky (2001) suggests, the language used to communicate a thought must reflect fairly accurately the thought being expressed (assuming that the speaker is articulate), if it does not the speaker will find another way to express the thought more fully, either by prose or coinage. By doing this, the certain limitation is removed from the language and the instance of LRH is eliminated, suggesting that LRH cannot be non-trivial. Study into the conception of time by speakers of different languages has shown that systematic differences of the sort postulated by the hypothesis do exist, but are trivial as they are only differences in the style of perception of the concept; there is no difference in content, thus there is no real or systematic difference. Study into spatial reasoning also supports the hypothesis, but again more research needs to be performed to determine whether such linguistic differences have any real effects on thought for the hypothesis to be fully vindicated. However, observations from gender classifications between languages provide strong support for LRH as they are clearly non-trivial examples of linguistic relativity; rather than mere instances, they involve differences in concepts brought about by linguistic differences. In conclusion, the LRH is sound; whilst it is easy to be distracted by trivial examples where linguistic differences merely cause preferences for certain styles of reasoning, there are also examples of real and systematic differences in thought between speakers of different languages that vindicate the hypothesis. Bibliography:
Boroditsky, L. (2001). ‘Does Language Shape Thought? Mandarin and
English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time’. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1): 1-32. Boroditsky, L. (2003). ‘Linguistic Relativity’. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, (pp. 917-922). London: Macmillan. Heider, E. (1972). ‘Probabilities, Sampling, and Ethnographic Method: The Case of Dani Colour Names’. Man, 7(3): 448-466. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). ‘Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization’. Language, 74(3): 557–589.
Does The Intentionalist Theory of Perception Provide A Convincing Expanation of Why The Argument From Illusion Fails? If So, What Is It? If Not, Why Not?
Is The Anti-Realist Position On Whether Belief in Unobservable Entities Is Justified in Reality An Expression of Our Inbility To Attribute Knowledge To Such Beliefs?
Does Locke Offer A Single, Coherent Justification of The Acquisition of Private Property in Chapter V of The Second Treatise? or Does He Offer A Plurality of Conflicting Justifications?