Linguistic Relativity With Annotated Bibliography

Linguistics

Begley, S. (2009). What's in a word? Newsweek/The Daily Beast. Retrieved online: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/08/what-s-in-a-word.html

Begley provides a helpful overview of the work of Boroditsky in the field of linguistic relativity. The theory was once lacking empirical grounding, but Boroditsky changed that, to provide scientific proof that language indeed shapes perception and cognition.

Boroditsky, L. (n.d.). Linguistic relativity. Retrieved online: http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/linguistic-relativity.pdf

Boroditsky's (n.d.) "intermediate paper" provides the foundation for linguistic relativity. The author describes how linguistic relativity shapes conceptions of space, spatial relations, time, shapes, substances, and other qualities of the perceptual universe. Language shapes habitual thought, which impacts the way cultures perceive and communicate their realities.

Bowers, J.S. & Pleydell-Pierce, C.W. (2011). Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022341

Bowers & Pleydell-Pierce (2011) contribute to the growing body of empirical research on the linguistic relativity hypothesis. The authors found that participants reacted differently, in terms of their autonomic nervous system responses measured by a custom-designed device, to swear words vs. their euphemistic counterparts or neutral triggers. The implication is that words do have a direct impact on the way people think and feel.

Fountain, H. (1999). People see colors with the tongue. The New York Times. March 30, 1999. Retrieved online: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~felluga/NewYorkTimes.html

Fountain (1999) provides a well-written overview of the Whorf hypothesis and linguistic relativity, and offers examples that highlight core tenets of the theory. What the source lacks in depth, it makes up for in clarity and accessibility to readers new to the subject.

Kousta, S.T., Vinson, D.P. & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(4): 843-858.

Kousta, Vinson & Vigliocco (2008) test linguistic relativity theory in an experiment involving bilingual and monolingual speakers. Acknowledging interfering variables such as age of acquisition of each language, the extent to which the two known languages are similar, and fluency levels in each language, the authors revealed core differences between bilingual English-Italian and monolingual English speakers.

Lucy, J.A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 1997(26): 291-213.

Lucy (1997) points out the weaknesses in linguistic relativity theory: mainly by citing in the lack of concrete empirical evidence showing the causal relationship between language and cognition. Although much has been written since Lucy's (1997) assessment, the article does show the importance of critical thinking with regards to the theory. Lucy (1997) also points out the different types of empirical approaches to linguistic relativity

Swoyer, C. (2003). The linguistic relativity hypothesis. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a reliable source of information on the theory of linguistic relativity. Moreover, the source is comprehensive in its approach to the subject as well as being clear and easy to understand. This entry covers the history of the hypothesis as the Sapir-Whorf theory, and also various applications and versions of the theory of linguistic relativity.

Woolard, K. (2010). Linguistic relativity, Whorf, linguistic anthropology. Society for Linguistic Anthropology. Retrieved online: http://linguisticanthropology.org/blog/2010/09/01/linguistic-relativity-whorf-linguistic-anthropology/

Coming from the perspective of linguistic anthropology, Wollard (2010) discusses the controversy surrounding linguistic relativity since Whorf and Sapir first advanced their theories. The author provides suggestions for further reading on the subject, too. The various reception of the linguistic relativity hypothesis helps the reader to understand alternative points-of-view and significant challenges to the theory.

Essay

As Fountain (1999) points out, "our linguistic categories affect the way we perceive the world." The concept that language shapes, or at least filters, reality is called linguistic relativity. Linguistic relativity offers a multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary framework, as it cuts across psychology, anthropology, linguistics, sociology, and philosophy. Woolard (2010) points out that although linguistic relativity has gained and lost traction since the original Whorf-Sapir hypothesis was developed, the theory remains crucial for the study of linguistic anthropology. Benjamin Lee Whorf's writings on the subject have become "something of a relativistic manifesto," according to Swoyer (2003). Although linguistic relativity has its critics, as Lucy (1997) points out, it continues to offer a powerful point of reference for conceptualizing about relative vs. absolute metaphysical reality. Linguistic relativity also provides the means to better understand differences between cultures.

The theory is relativistic because it suggests that there may be no absolute "reality," due to evidence showing how language impacts the perception of reality. In other words, reality is relative to language. The categories people make, and the objects or ideas that fit into those categories, shape perceptions of the world in ways that are fundamentally important. It is language that creates those categories, enforces them, and thus impacts the ways people think. For example, linguistic relativity theory shows how language can impact spatial relations. Begley (2009) points out the Australian Aboriginal Kuuk Thaayorre people's incredible sense of spatial reasoning and navigational ability. Linguistic relativity suggests that the Kuuk Thaayorre keen sense of direction in new places is due to their using compass point directions for everything, rather than relying on the relational terms "left" and "right" like we do in English. If a person has been thinking in terms of absolute directions from the compass, then it makes sense that they would not get lost as easily.