When in Vietnam: Linguistic Relativity as a Source of East-West Cultural Differences
Sarah Lamer
East Asian and Western countries are often contrasted in the literature for their markedly different cultures (Patterson, Iizuka, Tubbs, Ansel, Tsutsumi, & Anson, 2007; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001; Argyle, Shimoda, & Little, 1978; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Pronin, Berger, &, Molouki , 2007; Chiao, Harada, Komeda, Mano, Saito, Parrish, Sadato, & Iidaka, 2009). Whereas East Asian cultures tend to cultivate collectivist, interdependent identities, Western cultures tend to cultivate individualistic, independent identities (Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Nisbett, 2003). Research on those in collectivist cultures, for example, shows that they are more comfortable with ambivalence and contradiction (i.e., dialectic thinking; Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Peng, Spencer-Rodgers, & Zhong, 2005; Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, Wang, & Hou, 2004) and notice more about the relations between objects than the objects themselves (Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). Those in individualistic cultures are less comfortable with
dialectic thinking and instead attend to the objects themselves. When shown a panda, a monkey, and a banana, those from Asian cultures tended to say that the monkey and the banana went together and that the panda was an outlier (Chua, Boland, & Nisbett, 2005; Nisbett, 2003). Those from the United States, however, tended to say that the monkey and the panda went together and that the banana was an outlier. Whereas the Asian participants saw a relationship (i.e., monkey eats a banana), the US participants saw a category of objects (i.e., animals). Additionally, when given the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, Chinese participants were significantly more likely to endorse contradictory views of the self, whereas US participants were significantly more likely to endorse consistent views of the self (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004). The cultural differences in dialectical thought are well-established. Observed language differences between Vietnamese and English appear to parallel these cultural differences in perception.
Analysis of the Vietnamese language suggests that dialecticism is embodied in the language. Whereas, in English, the pronoun “I” does not change, in Vietnamese, the self-referential pronoun shifts based on the age and status of the person being spoken to. If a person is speaking to someone older, she would use the personal pronoun, “em,” but if speaking to someone younger, she would use the personal pronoun “chi.” Therefore, a sentence that remains stable in English no matter who she is talking to, such as “I want to eat lunch,” would change in Vietnamese to either “Em muố ă trư” or “Chịmuố ătrư.” This language parallel suggests that language may reinforce contextual, dialectical, interdependent social perceptions. Language may have an influence on cognition, primarily because the shifting pronoun use mirrors the contextual aspects of collectivist culture.
The argument for linguistic relativity (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1956) suggests that this shifting pronoun may be problematic for women’s self concepts. A woman is expected to speak to her partner with a submissive selfpronoun, even if she is older. This has applicability to gender equity and egalitarian relationships, for, if the self-concept shifts based on pronoun use, gender inequity may be embodied in language. In order to obtain egalitarian relationships and gender equity in Vietnamese culture, women would have to change how they refer to themselves linguistically in relation to their partners. Therefore, in this literature review, I will examine the research evidence for and against the argument that language influences cognition. Then, I will relate the evidence back to the case study of the Vietnamese language and propose a hypothesis about whether the shifting pronoun in the Vietnamese language influences cognition.
The Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis, named for Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) and his teacher Edward Sapir (1921), proposes that language affects cognition and perception. Sapir first suggested the idea of linguistic relativity in 1921. Whorf extended the argument about the role of language in thought after studying American Indian Languages (Anderson, 2009; Whorf, 1956). His observations led him to suggest that the words a language provides to discuss and label phenomena shape how the observer thinks about that phenomena. For example, the variety of words to describe snow, he proposed, influenced how Eskimos perceive snow compared to English-speaking counterparts who only have one word for snow. The Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis exists in both strong and weak forms suggesting either that language determines or merely influences cognition, respectively.
Support for the Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
Recent research on linguistic relativity provides compelling support for the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis and suggests the hypothesis may hold truth value. Researchers began investigation of linguistic relativity in the domain of color perception. However, researchers have more recently begun to explore linguistic relativity in the domains of time, object categorization, memory recall, spatial cognition, numbers, musical pitch, and gendered nouns.
Color.
Many languages differ substantially in how many words they have for different colors. Color perception, therefore, is a well-suited domain with which to test the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis. Some research suggests that dividing the continuous color spectrum into discrete categories causes people to discern colors within the same category as more similar than those of equal distance straddling a color term boundary (i.e., categorical perception; Harnad, 1987). A number of studies have tested people of different languages for their perception of colors with the primary goal of determining if language can alter perception. Research suggests that color processed through the left hemisphere (i.e., in the right visual field), leads to effects of language on cognition (Lu, Hodges, Zhang, & Wang, 2012; Gilbert, Regier, Kay, & Ivry, 2005; Regier & Kay, 2009). Gilbert and colleagues (2005) tested the effect of color distinction in the right and left visual fields. Although the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis did not hold for colors shown in the left visual field, differences in color labels did seem to have an effect on colors shown in the right visual field. This is consistent with brain modularity; generally, the left hemisphere, which processes the right visual field, is the area of the brain dedicated to language (Anderson, 2009). Additionally, when a concurrent verbal task was assigned (i.e., remembering a number), the differences in categorical perception of colors in the right visual field disappeared. Therefore, when language acts as a filter, language may actually affect perception (Regier & Kay, 2009). When language structures are otherwise occupied, linguistic relativity disappears.
Language also appears to affect memory for color. In an investigation among the Dani, Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff (2000) showed that color vocabulary between languages does play a role in the ability to differentiate between colors at the edge of a category boundary (Harnad, 1987). In other words, language-specific color vocabulary enables quicker perception for hues that are not as easily categorized and amplifies differences between colors that straddle a discrete linguistic color boundary (i.e., categorical perception). When language centers are used in information processing, social perception is related to language.
In a compelling case for linguistic relativity, Athanasopoulos, Dering, Wiggett, Kuipers, and Thierry, (2010) tested for differences in color perception among Greek speakers, for whom there are separate color words to distinguish light blue (i.e., ghalazio) from dark blue (i.e., ble), and among English speakers, for whom only the one color word exists. Using brain potentials to measure perceptual differences, Greek speakers had greater visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) when seeing blues with a slight luminance difference than when seeing greens with a slight luminance difference. Therefore, the additional category label for blue amplified the perceptual differences in dark and light blue. English speakers showed no significant difference in vMMN when perceiving discrepancies in blue or when perceiving discrepancies in green. Post-hoc analyses of brain activity revealed differences in the first peak following perception of visual stimuli paralleling the later vMMN differences. Therefore, perceptual differences due to linguistic relativity occur early in perceptual processing.
Findings from studies with bilinguals suggest linguistic
relativity is not limited to a person’s first language, but instead is dependent on the dominant language and the language more commonly used. Among Greek-English bilinguals, for example, the tendency toward amplified distinction between light and dark blue (i.e., consistent with Greek) or no distinction (i.e., consistent with English) depended on the availability of the linguistic terms in semantic memory (Athanasopoulos, 2009). Greater acculturation and more time spent in the country where the secondary language was spoken predicted an acclimation toward categorical perception similar to the secondary language. In a study of Japanese, in which there are two category labels for blue as in Greek, categorical perception tendencies among bilinguals depended on the language spoken more(Athanasopoulos, Damjanovik, Krajciova, & Sasaki, 2011). For those who used English more so than Japanese, the color distinction between light and dark blue was more difficult than for those who used Japanese more so than English.
Color perception, particularly at color boundaries, is influenced by language labels. Even as knowledge of subsequent languages increased, color perception evolved. Among first language (L1) Korean-English bilinguals, for example, color perception of blue differed from Korean monolinguals (Caskey-Sirmons & Hickson, 1977). Bilinguals rated blue as more purple and less green than monolinguals. This series of research suggests that color perception is embedded in language labels.
Time.
A secondary domain to study linguistic relativity is spatial representations of time. Researchers have begun to attend to how language shapes perceptions and conceptualizations of time. Boroditsky, Fuhrman, and McCormick (2010) investigated this question using Mandarin Chinese and English-speakers. Whereas Mandarin Chinese-speakers were quicker to understand time presented vertically, English-speakers were quicker to understand time presented horizontally (Fuhrman, McCormick, Chen, Jiang, Shu, Mao, Boroditsky, 2011; Boroditsky et al., 2011). Mandarin Chinese speakers also were able to conceptualize time horizontally consistent with the way words are written (i.e., from left to right). In Mandarin, however, time is represented primarily vertical spatial metaphors (i.e., to refer to something in the past, one would use the word shang or up). In English, on the other hand, time is represented primarily in horizontal spatial metaphors (i.e., looking forward to graduation). To test propensity towards each presentation of time, researchers flashed two pictures of Woody Allen. They analyzed reaction times to answer whether the second picture was taken later or earlier in his life than the first. The keys to choose later or earlier were either presented flat on a table or vertically up and down. The order of earlier and later were presented both ways (i.e., earlier above and later below, earlier below and later above, earlier to the left and later to the right, earlier to the right and later to the left). Englishspeakers reacted most quickly when time was presented horizontally with earlier on the left whereas Mandarin-speakers reacted most quickly when time was presented vertically with earlier above, consistent with each language’s common spatial metaphors. When bilinguals were tested, they were to quicker to react to the conceptualization of time consistent with the language currently in use. Combined, these research results suggest strong support for language-specific linguistic relativity.
Research comparing English and Hebrew speakers reveals a preference for time arrangements consistent with each language’s writing direction (Fuhrman & Boroditsky, 2010). English is written and read from left to right whereas Hebrew is written and read from right to left. When asked to indicate where a future event was located compared to a single dot on the screen, Hebrew respondents indicated a location to the left whereas English respondents indicated a location to the right. Additionally, Hebrew respondents were significantly quicker to categorize event order when using keys with earlier to the right and later to the left. In contrast, English speakers were significantly quicker to categorize event order when using keys with earlier and later to the right. These recent and promising findings indicate that there may be some truth to the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis; language may shape cognition.
Shape/Material.
Language, research suggests, influences preferences for perceiving and categorizing objects by shape or material (Imai & Gentner, 1997; Imai, 2000; Cook, Bassetti, Kasai, Sasaki, & Takahashi, 2006). When Japanese and English speakers were given an object (e.g., a pyramid made of cork) and asked to determine which of two objects was most similar (e.g., pyramid made of plastic, cube made of cork), Japanese speakers matched based on material whereas English speakers matched based on object shape (Imai & Gentner, 1997). This difference, Imai and Gentner (1997) suggest, is in accordance with the mass counting rules in each language. In Japanese, nouns are not usually identified with quantity. English speakers, on the other hand, do not use quantifiers with mass nouns but instead attend to how the object is encapsulated. Therefore, English speakers attend to the object to identify a mass noun (e.g., water) such that English speakers would say, “a glass of water,” rather than, “a water.” Yet, count nouns (e.g., book) beget corresponding classifiers (e.g., a book). The use of quantity identifiers in the English language creates a propensity for English speakers to match by shape
rather than material.
In a follow-up study to test how bilingualism shaped preference to match by shape, Cook et al. (2006) tested Japanese speakers who had lived in English-speaking countries for short or long periods. Although both long and short stay groups preferred matching by material, those in the long-stay group made significantly more shape matches and appeared significantly more similar to English monolinguals. Language-specific effects appear to play a role in interpretation of shape or material.
Memory.
Researchers have just begun exploring linguistic relativity in the domain of memory. Language differences in agentic and passive descriptions, research suggests, affect memory for perpetrators. Ina study of event memory, Spanish-speakers described intentional events with agentic descriptions (e.g., She ran the red light) whereas English-speakers described both intentional and accidential events with agentic descriptions (e.g., She tipped over the lamp; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011). In a non-linguistic task, English speakers remembered the perpetrators of both intentional and accidental events whereas Spanish speakers remembered the perpetrator of only intentional events. Agentic and passive language, therefore, may have implications for eyewitness memory. It is difficult, however, to separate this result as stemming from linguistic relativity or from cultural experience (see discussion of research against the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis).
Spatial cognition.
Spatial coordinate systems vary by language; research suggests language may play a role in how people perceive spatial cues. There are three forms of spatial coordinate systems: relative, in which objects are described in relation to one another from a third-person viewpoint (e.g., the fork is next to the knife); intrinsic, in which other objects are described in terms of their relation to a primary object (e.g., the fork is at the tip of the knife); and absolute, in which directional coordinates are used (e.g., the fork is east of the knife; Haun, Rapold, Janzen, & Levinson, 2011; Levinson, 2003).
When given the option, spatial cognition mirrors that which predominates in a person’s L1 language. Thus, when testing Namibian and Dutch children, children’s reconstructions of a set of toys matched the primary spatial cognition labels used in each child’s language (Haun et al., 2011). Children were shown an arrangement of toys and then asked to reconstruct the arrangement in a separate location. Namibian children reconstructed the toys based on an absolute (i.e., geocentric) representation of space whereas Dutch children reconstructed the toys based on an intrinsic (i.e., egocentric) representation of space. That is, the Namibian children maintained location of objects east and west. Dutch children maintained the location of objects as it pertained to themselves. Even when task difficulty increased, there was not a tendency for children to adopt one single spatial frame of reference, suggesting language has a powerful influence over spatial cognition. When each group of children was taught the alternative representation of space, only one fifth were able to complete the task using the alternative frame of reference. Language used to reference spatial arrangements is an indicator of perceptual processes.
Numbers.
Verbal number labeling systems may influence numerical capacity and processing. In most Asian languages, number labels are transparent. In other words, the verbal labels directly correspond to the quantity (e.g., 86 in Japanese is translated to mean eight-ten-six). Yet, in many European languages, the verbal labels are more complex and intratransparent (Miura, 1994; Pixner, Moeller, Hermanova, Nuerk, & Kaufmann, 2011). The labels are more indirectly related to the quantity (e.g., 82 in French is translated to mean four-twenty-two). This leads to what is called the unit-decade compatibility effect; in other words, people have more difficulty interpreting a number’s value when using a language with intratransparencies (Pixner et al., 2011). Miura (1994) suggests it is these linguistic differences that lead many Asian language speakers to have a better numerical understanding of the place value system. Therefore, verbal labels facilitate and hinder numerical perception.
In the German verbal number system, the tens and digits are often reversed when speaking or writing the number. In the Italian verbal number system, however, the tens and digits are not reversed but directly related to the order of the tens and digits places. Compared to Italian children, German children were significantly more likely to confuse numbers with their inverse (e.g., 27 and 72; Helmreich, Zuber, Pixner, Kaufmann, Nuerk, & Moeller, 2011). German children made this error even when numbers were significantly far from each other (e.g., 27 and 72 versus 45 and 54). To test the role of language in numerical understanding, Pixner and colleagues (2011) tested numerical understanding in German, Italian, and Czech children. German uses inversed tens and digits when speaking a number. Italian uses directly compatible tens and digits when speaking a number. Czech uses both inversed and directly compatible tens and digits when speaking numbers. Children were shown two numbers and asked to determine which of the two was larger. Compared to Italians and Czech children, German children committed significantly more errors suggesting a compatibility effect due to language. Linguistic relativity, therefore, plays a role in how children learn to perceive and process numbers.
Numerical exactness may be a function of language as well. The Pirahã people located in the Amazon have no exact numbers. Instead, they use three words – ho’i, hoi’, and baagiso – to indicate quantity. When asked to indicate the quantity of spools each time another was added (up until 10), participants used the three quantity words to mean one, approximately two, and more than two, respectively (Frank, Everett, Fedoresko, & Gibson, 2008). Yet, the meaning of the words did not remain constant. When asked to indicate the quantity of spools each time another was taken away (beginning at 10), participants used the three words to mean up to six, between four and ten, and between seven and ten. Gordon (2004) found that, as quantity increased, mistakes in quantity estimation increased. The Pirahã language system, therefore, facilitates approximation rather than exactness. Verbal numbering systems may facilitate particular mental representations of numbers and processing.
Musical pitch.
Languages vary in the descriptive vocabulary provided to refer to musical pitch (Dolscheid, Shayan, Majid, & Casasanto, in press). In Farsi, for example, a high frequency pitch is described as thin whereas a lowfrequency pitch is described as thick. This contrasts Dutch, for example, in which musical pitch is described as high or low. In a study of musical pitch perception, participants were asked to sing back pitches based on a visual representation on a computer screen and a computer-simulated soundbyte of the pitch. The visual representation was presented either higher or the lines were thicker. Whereas the height of the visual representation had no significant effect on the pitch Farsi-speaking participants sang, the thinness of the lines significantly increased pitch frequency. The opposite was true of Dutchspeakers. Whereas the width of the visual representation had no significant effect, the height of the visual representation on the screen significantly increased pitch frequency. The task was entirely non-linguistic, suggesting that language shapes perception of auditory channels. The most reasonable explanation for the impact of visual representations on pitch is the differences in linguistic labels for pitch. Therefore, Dolscheid and colleagues (in press) present strong evidence in support of linguistic relativity. Language vocabulary can significantly shape perception in a number of non-linguistic domains (e.g., auditory).
Gendered nouns.
In some languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian, French), nouns are assigned with genders. Research with English speakers for whom there is no gender assignment to nouns, suggests that perceptions of animate objects as feminine or masculine is consistent with gender assignments in Spanish and German (Boroditsky & Schmidt, 2000). Therefore, gender assignment may not be arbitrary. However, there is evidence that the gender assignment affects object perception and self-perception. For example, when asked to name objects (e.g., tiger) at a rapid rate, Italian speakers were more likely to substitute a similar object of the same gender assignment than English speakers (Kousta, Vinson, & Vigliocco, 2008). Further, bilinguals’ responses tended to have language specific effects on semantics (Pavlenko, 2011) such that, when speaking Italian, L1 English speakers assimilated to gender-based misnaming errors made by monolingual Italians. Similarly, when speaking English, L1 Italian speakers assimilated to patterns of monolingual English speakers.
The carryover of language to perception can be subtle. When German-English bilinguals read a sentence in English with an –er ending, a masculine schema was activated because of –er is used in German to identify masculine nouns (Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004). When reading a sentence of masculine stereotype-consistent nouns with –er endings (e.g., hunter), a male bias was activated whether the referent pronoun referred to the hunter, for example, as a woman or a man. This finding supports an interactive view of language processing such that a person’s first language is connected to subsequent learned languages (de Groot, Delmaar, & Lupker, 2000; Dijkstra, Grainger, & van Heuven, 1999; Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, & Brinke, 1998; Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004).
When a language provides gender assignments, speakers tend to use those assignments to judge gender whereas, when a language does not provide gender assignment, speakers tend to use stereotype to interpret gender (Sato, Gygax, & Gabriel, in press). When given French sentences referring to genderstereotyped professions (e.g., social workers), the gender of the noun dominated expectations of the gender of the sentence’s subjects. In French, the plural of social worker, a feminine-stereotyped profession is masculine (i.e., assistants sociaux). Therefore, French speakers anticipated the group of social workers to be men. Yet, when given English sentences referring to gender-stereotyped professions, the stereotype associated with the job dominated expectations of the gender of the sentence’s subjects. The results of this study showed language specific effects on semantic interpretation such that L1 French speakers switched to stereotype-based interpretations when speaking English. L1 English speakers switched to grammar-based gender interpretations when speaking French.
The linguistic gender of objects is encoded in a way that can influence memory. In a study of memory for word pairs (e.g., Patricia-apple), Spanish and
German speakers demonstrated significantly better memory when the gender of the object matched the assumed gender of the person (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2003). Gendered nouns, research suggests, play a role in social perception and suggest implications for gender categorization in professional roles. The effect of gender on semantic interpretation also suggests subtle perpetuation of gender inequity and interpretations of a men as the dominant group. For example, the plural of women in a group is melded with the plural used to refer to men in a group. Even if one man is present in a group of women, the plural changes to that used for men. Therefore, the interpretations are male dominated and make the presence of men more important.
Additional support for linguistic relativity as it pertains to gender was found in a study of Spanish-English bilinguals (Boutonnet, Athanasopoulos,& Thierry, 2012). Gender mismatching of one out of three objects activated event related potentials (ERP) in the brain. Participants were asked to complete a task of semantic categorization; when a third object belonged with the other two, participants were asked to press one button. When the third object did not belong, however, participants were asked to press a different button. The task was completed in English although the participants were L1 Spanish-speakers. In Spanish, the third object either matched in gender or did not match in gender to the other two objects. Interestingly, no behavioral differences were found. In other words, participants were not significantly more likely to categorize the English labels by their gender in Spanish. This supports language-specific effects of semantic interpretation. Yet, brain activity responded to gender inconsistency, suggesting language carryover of L1 to subsequent languages.
Summary.
The domains in which one can find support for linguistic relativity are broad. Color vocabulary influences categorical perception, particularly when presented in the right visual field (e.g., Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Gilbert et al., 2005). Time is conceptualized and best understood when presented in a way that is consistent with language-specific spatial metaphors and writing direction (e.g., Boroditsky et al., 2010; Fuhrman & Boroditsky, 2010). Count and mass noun rules influence whether people match by object shape or material (e.g., Imai & Gentner, 1997; Cook et al., 2006). Language used to describe events affects memory recall (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011). Spatial cognition is language-dependent in that each language uses a specific frame of reference and, thus, prepares language speakers to perceive their social environments that way (e.g., Haun et al., 2011). Verbal naming for numbers leads to language-specific errors or, for those with transparent verbal labels, lack of errors (e.g., Pixner et al, 2011). The linguistic labels to discuss music prepare people to conceptualize pitch in particular ways (Dolscheid et al., in press). Gender assignments within a language lead to the use of gender stereotypes to perceive objects (e.g., Kousta et al., 2008), even across languages (Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004). Research suggests that linguistic relativity effects can be language-specific (Pavlenko, 2011) or can carry over from one language to another (e.g., Caskey-Sirmons & Hickson, 1977). The range of evidence for linguistic relativity suggests Sapir and Whorf’s supposition is not only supported, but has valuable implications for cross-cultural communication and empathy.
Research Against the Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
Yet, support for the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis was not always so broadly distributed and robust. Even now, support among psychologist is not unanimous (Lindsey & Brown, 2002, Bornstein, Kessen, & Weiskopf, 1976; Franklin & Davies, 2004). Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity hypothesis has fallen in and out of favor since its introduction in 1956. In 1972, Rosch (then named Heider) delivered what was considered the final blow to the then popular Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis.
Rosch studied the Dani, a people whose language has only two color names – one for dark hues and one for light hues. In line with her expectations, the ability to identify focal colors did not depend on language. She questioned whether a) the specificity of color words in a language or b) different boundaries for color categories would develop specific cognitive abilities to identify those colors. The research did not support that discrete color labels had any effect on cognition. In general, the ability to identify colors was irrespective of the color names of each language. Yet, as discussed, the differences in perception occur when comparing colors that straddle discrete color boundaries compared to those that do not. After updating Rosch’s methodology, Roberson and colleagues (2000) found evidence of linguistic relativity in a group similar to the Dani.
Some research suggests that color perception differences between those who speak different languages are not due to the language, but to the environmental factors that affect vision. Lindsey and Brown (2002) suggest an alternative interpretation of categorical perception in perceiving the color blue. In a number of languages, there is no term for what in English is termed blue. This lack of a color term causes quicker reaction times when discerning between colors one each side of the blue-green boundary. Yet, Lindsey and Brown (2002) suggest that categorical perception differences are due to deteriorated visual acuity in people exposed to more UV-B sunlight rays. When asked to do a categorical perception task through a brunescent lens to simulate change in color perception with exposure to UV-B rays, English-speakers displayed longer reaction times to discerning colors on each side of the blue-green boundary than when asked to do the task through a clear lens. When doing the task through a clear lens, the English-speakers showed categorical perception differences such that it took them less time to discern colors of equal distance across the bluegreen boundary than to discern colors of equal distance within the blue or green boundary. This evidence suggests that categorical perception at the blue-green color boundary is not due to the terms for colors, but instead to loss of visual acuity in people living in regions with high sunlight exposure.
Language universalists (i.e., those who do not support the Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis) provide evidence that toddlers demonstrate categorical perception before learning language acquisition (Bornstein et al., 1976; Franklin & Davies, 2004; Franklin, Clifford, Williamson, & Davies, 2004). For example, toddlers between the ages of 2 and 4 exhibited categorical perception (Franklin et al, 2004). Furthermore, categorical perception showed a negative relationship with linguistic knowledge such that the more language a child knew, the less difference in time to discern between colors straddling a category boundary and colors within a category boundary.
Language universalists also provide evidence that categorical perception in the left hemisphere is not due to language, but instead to the left hemisphere’s preference for categorization. Holmes & Wolff (2012) provided participants with a categorical perception task either with or without linguistic labels. When presented in the right visual field, participants showed significantly greater categorical perception, consistent with previous research in support of linguistic relativity (Lu et al., 2012; Gilbert et al., 2005; Regier & Kay, 2009). Yet, the effect was present with and without linguistic labels, drawing into question whether it is the left hemisphere’s language-dominance or categorical tendencies that lead to right visual field categorical perception.
In relation to spatial cognition, research suggests that the preference for spatial cues is not based on those primarily used in one’s L1 language, but instead to ecological cues available (Li & Gleitman, 2002). Studies supporting linguistic relativity in spatial cognition, Li and Gleitman suggest, are due to whether the methodology was completed outside or inside. Thus, people use different cues in different environments.
Others point out the difficulty in differentiating cultural experience from linguistic relativity (Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun, & Levinson, 2004.) For example, Whorf (1956) hypothesized that because Eskimos have a number of words for snow, Eskimos perceive snow differently. However, perception may be informed by experience, not linguistic labels. In Bahasa Malaysia, speakers have a number of words to describe saltiness. In a study between English speakers and Malaysian speakers, Malaysian speakers were significantly better at discriminating between degrees of saltiness than English speakers (O’Mahony & Muhiudeen, 1977). Is this a difference in linguistic labels or cultural experience with saltier foods? The answer has yet to be found. As discussed earlier, it is difficult to differentiate between differences in event recall due to language and due to culture (Fausey & Boroditsky; 2011). Culture and language are confounded; separating the two presents difficulties for supporting the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis.
Summary
The Sapir-Whorfing linguistic relativity hypothesis is critiqued in the literature both methodologically and theoretically. Research against the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis suggests that it is phototoxicity, rather than linguistic relativity, producing observed categorical perception differences (Lindsey & Brown, 2002). Research also provides evidence of categorical perception prior to language acquisition, suggesting that linguistic relativity may be confounded with other factors (e.g., Franklin & Davies, 2004). Even with objects without linguistic labels, the left hemisphere demonstrates more categorical perception than its counterpart, speaking to the left hemisphere’s acclimation to categorization (Holmes & Wolff, 2012). Critiques of spatial cognition research point to methodological flaws and suggest children use environmental cues regardless of language preference (Li & Gleitman, 2002). Similarly, researchers point out that it is difficult to
differentiate between cultural effects and those linked to language, as in the study of event recall among Spanish and English speakers (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011).
For and Against
After Rosch’s study in 1972, support for linguistic relativity dwindled. Yet, the present literature for linguistic relativity present a strong case and seems to far outweighs the case for linguistic universality. Critiques of the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis draw attention to methodological flaws and overlooked factors, such as environmental effects on vision. Yet, evidence for linguistic relativity ranging from color to musical pitch suggests that, when processed using language centers, perception is altered by language. There is still question of how to tease apart language-specific effects from carryover from other languages (e.g., German –er ending used in interpretation of English words). Support for the strong Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (i.e., language limits ability to think in certain ways) has all but disappeared. Instead, researchers have focused on the weak Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (i.e., language makes certain thoughts and perception more accessible). The outgrowth of linguistic relativity research has even drawn in researchers formerly opposed to the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (Daoutis, Franklin, Riddett, Clifford, & Davies, 2006; Drivonikou, Kay, Regier, Ivry, Gilbert, Franklin, & Davies, 2007). Linguistic effects on perception have been documented in a sprinkling of domains. However, continued study of linguistic relativity is important especially in the context of globalization, cross-cultural interaction, and seeking social equity.
Case Study: Shifting Pronoun Use in Vietnamese
Research on linguistic relativity suggests language differences may elucidate east-west cultural differences. Various forms of information are encoded in language. Therefore, that dialectical thinking and interdependence is embedded in linguistic properties is not so far-fetched. Language may play an influential role in social perception. In Vietnamese, the self-referential pronoun depends on the age and gender of the person being spoken to. In light of the present research on linguistic relativity, the parallel between language and East Asian cultures begs the question of whether language influences social perception in this domain. Do pronoun rules shape people to think dialectically and interdependently about themselves and others? If social perception responds to pronoun use, this has the potential to change how gender equity and egalitarian relationships are sought. That is, if pronoun use changes selfperception, then the submissive pronoun use may be a detriment for those seeking egalitarian relationships. Self-concepts affect behavior. Thus, for women, self-perception shifts evoked by submissive pronoun use could have deleterious behavioral consequences.
References
Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Argyle, M., Shimoda, K., & Little, B. (1978). Variance due to persons and situations in England and Japan. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 335-337.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83-95. doi:10.1017/S136672890800388X
Athanasopoulos, P., Damjanovic, L., Krajciova, A., & Sasaki, M. (2011). Representation of colour concepts in bilingual cognition: The case of Japanese Blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 9-17. doi:10.1017/S1366728909990046
Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilingualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116, 437-443. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.016
Bornstein, M. H., Kessen, W., & Weiskopf, S. (1976). Color vision and hue categorization in young human infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 115-129. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.1.115
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2010). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123-129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the study of Language and Cognition (pp. 61-80). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
Boutonnet B., Athanasopoulos, P. & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during object categorisation. Brain Research, 1479, 72-79. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.08.044
Caskey-Sirmons, L. A., & Hickson, N. P. (1977). Semantic shift and bilingualism: Variation in the color terms of five languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 19, 358-367.
Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Parrish, T. B.,Sadato, N., & Iidaka, T. (2009). Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1-11. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21192
Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 12629-12633.
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., Takahashi, J.A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137-152.
Daoutis, C. A., Franklin, A., Riddett, A., Clifford, A., & Davies, I. L. (2006). Categorical effects in children's colour search: A cross-linguistic comparison. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 373-400. doi:10.1348/026151005X51266
de Groot, A. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A, 397-428. doi:10.1080/027249800390547
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496-518. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51-66.
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (in press). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science.
Drivonikou, G. V., Kay, P. P., Regier, T. T., Ivry, R. B., Gilbert, A. L., Franklin, A. A., & Davies, I. L. (2007). Further evidence that Whorfian effects are stronger in the right visual field than the left. PNAS Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,104, 1097-1102. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610132104
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473, 79-82. doi:10.1038/nature09923
Fausey, C. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 150-157. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5
Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819-824. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007
Franklin, A., Clifford, A., Williamson, E., & Davies, I. (2005). Color term knowledge does not affect categorical perception of color in toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 114-141. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.10.001
Franklin, A., & Davies, I. L. (2004). New evidence for infant colour categories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 349-377. doi:10.1348/0261510041552738
Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430-1451. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces
shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35, 1305-1328. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01193.x
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 150-157. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5
Gilbert, A. L., Regier, T., Kay, P., &, Ivry, R. B. (2005). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 489–494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509868103
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence
from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496-499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492
Harnad, S. (1987) Psychophysical and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: A critical overview. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 1-28). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haun, D. M., Rapold, C. J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition, 119, 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009
Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 10-20. doi:10.1037/h0032606
Helmreich, I., Zuber, J., Pixner, S., Kaufmann, L., Nuerk, H., & Moeller, K. (2011). Language effects on children’s nonverbal number line estimations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 598-613. doi:10.1177/0022022111406026
Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2012). Does categorical perception in the left hemisphere depend on language? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 439-443. doi:10.1037/a0027289
Imai, M. (2000).Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language specific categories in the construal of individuation. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp.139-160). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition ,62, 169-200. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6
Kousta, S., 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, 843-858. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.843
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83, 265-294. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4
Lindsey, D. T., & Brown, A. M. (2002). Color naming and the phototoxic effects of sunlight on the eye. Psychological Science, 13, 506-512. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00489
Lu, A., Hodges, B. H., Zhang, J., Wang, X. (2012). A Whorfian speed bump? Effects of Chinese color names on recognition across hemispheres. Language Sciences, 34, 591-603. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.014
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108-114. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003
Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama and H. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture (pp. 89-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922-934. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922
Miura, K. (1994). Fifth graders' behaviors in mathematics classes—Its differences by achievement level and sex. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 174-184.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently ... and why. New York: The Free Press.
O'Mahony, M. M., & Muhiudeen, H. H. (1977). A preliminary study of alternative taste languages using qualitative description of sodium chloride solutions: Malay versus English. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 275-278. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1977.tb01588.x
Patterson, M. L., Iizuka, Y., Tubbs, M. E., Ansel, J., Tsutsumi, M., & Anson, J. (2007). Passing encounters east and west: Comparing Japanese and American pedestrian interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31,155-166. doi:10.1007/s10919-007-0028-4
Pavlenko, A. (2011) Thinking and speaking in two languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J. & Zhong, N. (2005). Naive dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese thought. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, & G. Huang, (Eds.), The Handbook of indigenous and cultural psychology (pp. 247- 262). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Pixner, S. S., Moeller, K. K., Hermanova, V. V., Nuerk, H. C., & Kaufmann, L.L. (2011). Whorf reloaded: Language effects on nonverbal
number processing in first grade —a trilingual study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 371-382. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.002
Pronin, E., Berger, J., & Molouki, S. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 585-595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.585
Regier, T., & Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 439-446. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.001
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 369-398. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.369
Sapir, E. E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace.
Sato, S., Gygax, P., & Gabriel, U. (in press). Gender Inferences: Grammatical features and their impact on the representation of gender in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Scheutz, M. J., & Eberhard, K. M. (2004). Effects of morphosyntactic gender features in bilingual language processing. Cognitive Science, 28, 559-588. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.03.001
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical selfesteem and east-west differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1416-1432. doi:10.1177/0146167204264243
Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
dialectic thinking and instead attend to the objects themselves. When shown a panda, a monkey, and a banana, those from Asian cultures tended to say that the monkey and the banana went together and that the panda was an outlier (Chua, Boland, & Nisbett, 2005; Nisbett, 2003). Those from the United States, however, tended to say that the monkey and the panda went together and that the banana was an outlier. Whereas the Asian participants saw a relationship (i.e., monkey eats a banana), the US participants saw a category of objects (i.e., animals). Additionally, when given the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, Chinese participants were significantly more likely to endorse contradictory views of the self, whereas US participants were significantly more likely to endorse consistent views of the self (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004). The cultural differences in dialectical thought are well-established. Observed language differences between Vietnamese and English appear to parallel these cultural differences in perception.
Analysis of the Vietnamese language suggests that dialecticism is embodied in the language. Whereas, in English, the pronoun “I” does not change, in Vietnamese, the self-referential pronoun shifts based on the age and status of the person being spoken to. If a person is speaking to someone older, she would use the personal pronoun, “em,” but if speaking to someone younger, she would use the personal pronoun “chi.” Therefore, a sentence that remains stable in English no matter who she is talking to, such as “I want to eat lunch,” would change in Vietnamese to either “Em muố ă trư” or “Chịmuố ătrư.” This language parallel suggests that language may reinforce contextual, dialectical, interdependent social perceptions. Language may have an influence on cognition, primarily because the shifting pronoun use mirrors the contextual aspects of collectivist culture.
The argument for linguistic relativity (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1956) suggests that this shifting pronoun may be problematic for women’s self concepts. A woman is expected to speak to her partner with a submissive selfpronoun, even if she is older. This has applicability to gender equity and egalitarian relationships, for, if the self-concept shifts based on pronoun use, gender inequity may be embodied in language. In order to obtain egalitarian relationships and gender equity in Vietnamese culture, women would have to change how they refer to themselves linguistically in relation to their partners. Therefore, in this literature review, I will examine the research evidence for and against the argument that language influences cognition. Then, I will relate the evidence back to the case study of the Vietnamese language and propose a hypothesis about whether the shifting pronoun in the Vietnamese language influences cognition.
The Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis, named for Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) and his teacher Edward Sapir (1921), proposes that language affects cognition and perception. Sapir first suggested the idea of linguistic relativity in 1921. Whorf extended the argument about the role of language in thought after studying American Indian Languages (Anderson, 2009; Whorf, 1956). His observations led him to suggest that the words a language provides to discuss and label phenomena shape how the observer thinks about that phenomena. For example, the variety of words to describe snow, he proposed, influenced how Eskimos perceive snow compared to English-speaking counterparts who only have one word for snow. The Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis exists in both strong and weak forms suggesting either that language determines or merely influences cognition, respectively.
Support for the Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
Recent research on linguistic relativity provides compelling support for the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis and suggests the hypothesis may hold truth value. Researchers began investigation of linguistic relativity in the domain of color perception. However, researchers have more recently begun to explore linguistic relativity in the domains of time, object categorization, memory recall, spatial cognition, numbers, musical pitch, and gendered nouns.
Color.
Many languages differ substantially in how many words they have for different colors. Color perception, therefore, is a well-suited domain with which to test the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis. Some research suggests that dividing the continuous color spectrum into discrete categories causes people to discern colors within the same category as more similar than those of equal distance straddling a color term boundary (i.e., categorical perception; Harnad, 1987). A number of studies have tested people of different languages for their perception of colors with the primary goal of determining if language can alter perception. Research suggests that color processed through the left hemisphere (i.e., in the right visual field), leads to effects of language on cognition (Lu, Hodges, Zhang, & Wang, 2012; Gilbert, Regier, Kay, & Ivry, 2005; Regier & Kay, 2009). Gilbert and colleagues (2005) tested the effect of color distinction in the right and left visual fields. Although the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis did not hold for colors shown in the left visual field, differences in color labels did seem to have an effect on colors shown in the right visual field. This is consistent with brain modularity; generally, the left hemisphere, which processes the right visual field, is the area of the brain dedicated to language (Anderson, 2009). Additionally, when a concurrent verbal task was assigned (i.e., remembering a number), the differences in categorical perception of colors in the right visual field disappeared. Therefore, when language acts as a filter, language may actually affect perception (Regier & Kay, 2009). When language structures are otherwise occupied, linguistic relativity disappears.
Language also appears to affect memory for color. In an investigation among the Dani, Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff (2000) showed that color vocabulary between languages does play a role in the ability to differentiate between colors at the edge of a category boundary (Harnad, 1987). In other words, language-specific color vocabulary enables quicker perception for hues that are not as easily categorized and amplifies differences between colors that straddle a discrete linguistic color boundary (i.e., categorical perception). When language centers are used in information processing, social perception is related to language.
In a compelling case for linguistic relativity, Athanasopoulos, Dering, Wiggett, Kuipers, and Thierry, (2010) tested for differences in color perception among Greek speakers, for whom there are separate color words to distinguish light blue (i.e., ghalazio) from dark blue (i.e., ble), and among English speakers, for whom only the one color word exists. Using brain potentials to measure perceptual differences, Greek speakers had greater visual mismatch negativity (vMMN) when seeing blues with a slight luminance difference than when seeing greens with a slight luminance difference. Therefore, the additional category label for blue amplified the perceptual differences in dark and light blue. English speakers showed no significant difference in vMMN when perceiving discrepancies in blue or when perceiving discrepancies in green. Post-hoc analyses of brain activity revealed differences in the first peak following perception of visual stimuli paralleling the later vMMN differences. Therefore, perceptual differences due to linguistic relativity occur early in perceptual processing.
Findings from studies with bilinguals suggest linguistic
relativity is not limited to a person’s first language, but instead is dependent on the dominant language and the language more commonly used. Among Greek-English bilinguals, for example, the tendency toward amplified distinction between light and dark blue (i.e., consistent with Greek) or no distinction (i.e., consistent with English) depended on the availability of the linguistic terms in semantic memory (Athanasopoulos, 2009). Greater acculturation and more time spent in the country where the secondary language was spoken predicted an acclimation toward categorical perception similar to the secondary language. In a study of Japanese, in which there are two category labels for blue as in Greek, categorical perception tendencies among bilinguals depended on the language spoken more(Athanasopoulos, Damjanovik, Krajciova, & Sasaki, 2011). For those who used English more so than Japanese, the color distinction between light and dark blue was more difficult than for those who used Japanese more so than English.
Color perception, particularly at color boundaries, is influenced by language labels. Even as knowledge of subsequent languages increased, color perception evolved. Among first language (L1) Korean-English bilinguals, for example, color perception of blue differed from Korean monolinguals (Caskey-Sirmons & Hickson, 1977). Bilinguals rated blue as more purple and less green than monolinguals. This series of research suggests that color perception is embedded in language labels.
Time.
A secondary domain to study linguistic relativity is spatial representations of time. Researchers have begun to attend to how language shapes perceptions and conceptualizations of time. Boroditsky, Fuhrman, and McCormick (2010) investigated this question using Mandarin Chinese and English-speakers. Whereas Mandarin Chinese-speakers were quicker to understand time presented vertically, English-speakers were quicker to understand time presented horizontally (Fuhrman, McCormick, Chen, Jiang, Shu, Mao, Boroditsky, 2011; Boroditsky et al., 2011). Mandarin Chinese speakers also were able to conceptualize time horizontally consistent with the way words are written (i.e., from left to right). In Mandarin, however, time is represented primarily vertical spatial metaphors (i.e., to refer to something in the past, one would use the word shang or up). In English, on the other hand, time is represented primarily in horizontal spatial metaphors (i.e., looking forward to graduation). To test propensity towards each presentation of time, researchers flashed two pictures of Woody Allen. They analyzed reaction times to answer whether the second picture was taken later or earlier in his life than the first. The keys to choose later or earlier were either presented flat on a table or vertically up and down. The order of earlier and later were presented both ways (i.e., earlier above and later below, earlier below and later above, earlier to the left and later to the right, earlier to the right and later to the left). Englishspeakers reacted most quickly when time was presented horizontally with earlier on the left whereas Mandarin-speakers reacted most quickly when time was presented vertically with earlier above, consistent with each language’s common spatial metaphors. When bilinguals were tested, they were to quicker to react to the conceptualization of time consistent with the language currently in use. Combined, these research results suggest strong support for language-specific linguistic relativity.
Research comparing English and Hebrew speakers reveals a preference for time arrangements consistent with each language’s writing direction (Fuhrman & Boroditsky, 2010). English is written and read from left to right whereas Hebrew is written and read from right to left. When asked to indicate where a future event was located compared to a single dot on the screen, Hebrew respondents indicated a location to the left whereas English respondents indicated a location to the right. Additionally, Hebrew respondents were significantly quicker to categorize event order when using keys with earlier to the right and later to the left. In contrast, English speakers were significantly quicker to categorize event order when using keys with earlier and later to the right. These recent and promising findings indicate that there may be some truth to the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis; language may shape cognition.
Shape/Material.
Language, research suggests, influences preferences for perceiving and categorizing objects by shape or material (Imai & Gentner, 1997; Imai, 2000; Cook, Bassetti, Kasai, Sasaki, & Takahashi, 2006). When Japanese and English speakers were given an object (e.g., a pyramid made of cork) and asked to determine which of two objects was most similar (e.g., pyramid made of plastic, cube made of cork), Japanese speakers matched based on material whereas English speakers matched based on object shape (Imai & Gentner, 1997). This difference, Imai and Gentner (1997) suggest, is in accordance with the mass counting rules in each language. In Japanese, nouns are not usually identified with quantity. English speakers, on the other hand, do not use quantifiers with mass nouns but instead attend to how the object is encapsulated. Therefore, English speakers attend to the object to identify a mass noun (e.g., water) such that English speakers would say, “a glass of water,” rather than, “a water.” Yet, count nouns (e.g., book) beget corresponding classifiers (e.g., a book). The use of quantity identifiers in the English language creates a propensity for English speakers to match by shape
rather than material.
In a follow-up study to test how bilingualism shaped preference to match by shape, Cook et al. (2006) tested Japanese speakers who had lived in English-speaking countries for short or long periods. Although both long and short stay groups preferred matching by material, those in the long-stay group made significantly more shape matches and appeared significantly more similar to English monolinguals. Language-specific effects appear to play a role in interpretation of shape or material.
Memory.
Researchers have just begun exploring linguistic relativity in the domain of memory. Language differences in agentic and passive descriptions, research suggests, affect memory for perpetrators. Ina study of event memory, Spanish-speakers described intentional events with agentic descriptions (e.g., She ran the red light) whereas English-speakers described both intentional and accidential events with agentic descriptions (e.g., She tipped over the lamp; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011). In a non-linguistic task, English speakers remembered the perpetrators of both intentional and accidental events whereas Spanish speakers remembered the perpetrator of only intentional events. Agentic and passive language, therefore, may have implications for eyewitness memory. It is difficult, however, to separate this result as stemming from linguistic relativity or from cultural experience (see discussion of research against the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis).
Spatial cognition.
Spatial coordinate systems vary by language; research suggests language may play a role in how people perceive spatial cues. There are three forms of spatial coordinate systems: relative, in which objects are described in relation to one another from a third-person viewpoint (e.g., the fork is next to the knife); intrinsic, in which other objects are described in terms of their relation to a primary object (e.g., the fork is at the tip of the knife); and absolute, in which directional coordinates are used (e.g., the fork is east of the knife; Haun, Rapold, Janzen, & Levinson, 2011; Levinson, 2003).
When given the option, spatial cognition mirrors that which predominates in a person’s L1 language. Thus, when testing Namibian and Dutch children, children’s reconstructions of a set of toys matched the primary spatial cognition labels used in each child’s language (Haun et al., 2011). Children were shown an arrangement of toys and then asked to reconstruct the arrangement in a separate location. Namibian children reconstructed the toys based on an absolute (i.e., geocentric) representation of space whereas Dutch children reconstructed the toys based on an intrinsic (i.e., egocentric) representation of space. That is, the Namibian children maintained location of objects east and west. Dutch children maintained the location of objects as it pertained to themselves. Even when task difficulty increased, there was not a tendency for children to adopt one single spatial frame of reference, suggesting language has a powerful influence over spatial cognition. When each group of children was taught the alternative representation of space, only one fifth were able to complete the task using the alternative frame of reference. Language used to reference spatial arrangements is an indicator of perceptual processes.
Numbers.
Verbal number labeling systems may influence numerical capacity and processing. In most Asian languages, number labels are transparent. In other words, the verbal labels directly correspond to the quantity (e.g., 86 in Japanese is translated to mean eight-ten-six). Yet, in many European languages, the verbal labels are more complex and intratransparent (Miura, 1994; Pixner, Moeller, Hermanova, Nuerk, & Kaufmann, 2011). The labels are more indirectly related to the quantity (e.g., 82 in French is translated to mean four-twenty-two). This leads to what is called the unit-decade compatibility effect; in other words, people have more difficulty interpreting a number’s value when using a language with intratransparencies (Pixner et al., 2011). Miura (1994) suggests it is these linguistic differences that lead many Asian language speakers to have a better numerical understanding of the place value system. Therefore, verbal labels facilitate and hinder numerical perception.
In the German verbal number system, the tens and digits are often reversed when speaking or writing the number. In the Italian verbal number system, however, the tens and digits are not reversed but directly related to the order of the tens and digits places. Compared to Italian children, German children were significantly more likely to confuse numbers with their inverse (e.g., 27 and 72; Helmreich, Zuber, Pixner, Kaufmann, Nuerk, & Moeller, 2011). German children made this error even when numbers were significantly far from each other (e.g., 27 and 72 versus 45 and 54). To test the role of language in numerical understanding, Pixner and colleagues (2011) tested numerical understanding in German, Italian, and Czech children. German uses inversed tens and digits when speaking a number. Italian uses directly compatible tens and digits when speaking a number. Czech uses both inversed and directly compatible tens and digits when speaking numbers. Children were shown two numbers and asked to determine which of the two was larger. Compared to Italians and Czech children, German children committed significantly more errors suggesting a compatibility effect due to language. Linguistic relativity, therefore, plays a role in how children learn to perceive and process numbers.
Numerical exactness may be a function of language as well. The Pirahã people located in the Amazon have no exact numbers. Instead, they use three words – ho’i, hoi’, and baagiso – to indicate quantity. When asked to indicate the quantity of spools each time another was added (up until 10), participants used the three quantity words to mean one, approximately two, and more than two, respectively (Frank, Everett, Fedoresko, & Gibson, 2008). Yet, the meaning of the words did not remain constant. When asked to indicate the quantity of spools each time another was taken away (beginning at 10), participants used the three words to mean up to six, between four and ten, and between seven and ten. Gordon (2004) found that, as quantity increased, mistakes in quantity estimation increased. The Pirahã language system, therefore, facilitates approximation rather than exactness. Verbal numbering systems may facilitate particular mental representations of numbers and processing.
Musical pitch.
Languages vary in the descriptive vocabulary provided to refer to musical pitch (Dolscheid, Shayan, Majid, & Casasanto, in press). In Farsi, for example, a high frequency pitch is described as thin whereas a lowfrequency pitch is described as thick. This contrasts Dutch, for example, in which musical pitch is described as high or low. In a study of musical pitch perception, participants were asked to sing back pitches based on a visual representation on a computer screen and a computer-simulated soundbyte of the pitch. The visual representation was presented either higher or the lines were thicker. Whereas the height of the visual representation had no significant effect on the pitch Farsi-speaking participants sang, the thinness of the lines significantly increased pitch frequency. The opposite was true of Dutchspeakers. Whereas the width of the visual representation had no significant effect, the height of the visual representation on the screen significantly increased pitch frequency. The task was entirely non-linguistic, suggesting that language shapes perception of auditory channels. The most reasonable explanation for the impact of visual representations on pitch is the differences in linguistic labels for pitch. Therefore, Dolscheid and colleagues (in press) present strong evidence in support of linguistic relativity. Language vocabulary can significantly shape perception in a number of non-linguistic domains (e.g., auditory).
Gendered nouns.
In some languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian, French), nouns are assigned with genders. Research with English speakers for whom there is no gender assignment to nouns, suggests that perceptions of animate objects as feminine or masculine is consistent with gender assignments in Spanish and German (Boroditsky & Schmidt, 2000). Therefore, gender assignment may not be arbitrary. However, there is evidence that the gender assignment affects object perception and self-perception. For example, when asked to name objects (e.g., tiger) at a rapid rate, Italian speakers were more likely to substitute a similar object of the same gender assignment than English speakers (Kousta, Vinson, & Vigliocco, 2008). Further, bilinguals’ responses tended to have language specific effects on semantics (Pavlenko, 2011) such that, when speaking Italian, L1 English speakers assimilated to gender-based misnaming errors made by monolingual Italians. Similarly, when speaking English, L1 Italian speakers assimilated to patterns of monolingual English speakers.
The carryover of language to perception can be subtle. When German-English bilinguals read a sentence in English with an –er ending, a masculine schema was activated because of –er is used in German to identify masculine nouns (Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004). When reading a sentence of masculine stereotype-consistent nouns with –er endings (e.g., hunter), a male bias was activated whether the referent pronoun referred to the hunter, for example, as a woman or a man. This finding supports an interactive view of language processing such that a person’s first language is connected to subsequent learned languages (de Groot, Delmaar, & Lupker, 2000; Dijkstra, Grainger, & van Heuven, 1999; Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld, & Brinke, 1998; Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004).
When a language provides gender assignments, speakers tend to use those assignments to judge gender whereas, when a language does not provide gender assignment, speakers tend to use stereotype to interpret gender (Sato, Gygax, & Gabriel, in press). When given French sentences referring to genderstereotyped professions (e.g., social workers), the gender of the noun dominated expectations of the gender of the sentence’s subjects. In French, the plural of social worker, a feminine-stereotyped profession is masculine (i.e., assistants sociaux). Therefore, French speakers anticipated the group of social workers to be men. Yet, when given English sentences referring to gender-stereotyped professions, the stereotype associated with the job dominated expectations of the gender of the sentence’s subjects. The results of this study showed language specific effects on semantic interpretation such that L1 French speakers switched to stereotype-based interpretations when speaking English. L1 English speakers switched to grammar-based gender interpretations when speaking French.
The linguistic gender of objects is encoded in a way that can influence memory. In a study of memory for word pairs (e.g., Patricia-apple), Spanish and
German speakers demonstrated significantly better memory when the gender of the object matched the assumed gender of the person (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2003). Gendered nouns, research suggests, play a role in social perception and suggest implications for gender categorization in professional roles. The effect of gender on semantic interpretation also suggests subtle perpetuation of gender inequity and interpretations of a men as the dominant group. For example, the plural of women in a group is melded with the plural used to refer to men in a group. Even if one man is present in a group of women, the plural changes to that used for men. Therefore, the interpretations are male dominated and make the presence of men more important.
Additional support for linguistic relativity as it pertains to gender was found in a study of Spanish-English bilinguals (Boutonnet, Athanasopoulos,& Thierry, 2012). Gender mismatching of one out of three objects activated event related potentials (ERP) in the brain. Participants were asked to complete a task of semantic categorization; when a third object belonged with the other two, participants were asked to press one button. When the third object did not belong, however, participants were asked to press a different button. The task was completed in English although the participants were L1 Spanish-speakers. In Spanish, the third object either matched in gender or did not match in gender to the other two objects. Interestingly, no behavioral differences were found. In other words, participants were not significantly more likely to categorize the English labels by their gender in Spanish. This supports language-specific effects of semantic interpretation. Yet, brain activity responded to gender inconsistency, suggesting language carryover of L1 to subsequent languages.
Summary.
The domains in which one can find support for linguistic relativity are broad. Color vocabulary influences categorical perception, particularly when presented in the right visual field (e.g., Athanasopoulos et al., 2010; Gilbert et al., 2005). Time is conceptualized and best understood when presented in a way that is consistent with language-specific spatial metaphors and writing direction (e.g., Boroditsky et al., 2010; Fuhrman & Boroditsky, 2010). Count and mass noun rules influence whether people match by object shape or material (e.g., Imai & Gentner, 1997; Cook et al., 2006). Language used to describe events affects memory recall (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011). Spatial cognition is language-dependent in that each language uses a specific frame of reference and, thus, prepares language speakers to perceive their social environments that way (e.g., Haun et al., 2011). Verbal naming for numbers leads to language-specific errors or, for those with transparent verbal labels, lack of errors (e.g., Pixner et al, 2011). The linguistic labels to discuss music prepare people to conceptualize pitch in particular ways (Dolscheid et al., in press). Gender assignments within a language lead to the use of gender stereotypes to perceive objects (e.g., Kousta et al., 2008), even across languages (Scheutz & Eberhard, 2004). Research suggests that linguistic relativity effects can be language-specific (Pavlenko, 2011) or can carry over from one language to another (e.g., Caskey-Sirmons & Hickson, 1977). The range of evidence for linguistic relativity suggests Sapir and Whorf’s supposition is not only supported, but has valuable implications for cross-cultural communication and empathy.
Research Against the Sapir-Whorfing Hypothesis
Yet, support for the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis was not always so broadly distributed and robust. Even now, support among psychologist is not unanimous (Lindsey & Brown, 2002, Bornstein, Kessen, & Weiskopf, 1976; Franklin & Davies, 2004). Sapir and Whorf’s linguistic relativity hypothesis has fallen in and out of favor since its introduction in 1956. In 1972, Rosch (then named Heider) delivered what was considered the final blow to the then popular Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis.
Rosch studied the Dani, a people whose language has only two color names – one for dark hues and one for light hues. In line with her expectations, the ability to identify focal colors did not depend on language. She questioned whether a) the specificity of color words in a language or b) different boundaries for color categories would develop specific cognitive abilities to identify those colors. The research did not support that discrete color labels had any effect on cognition. In general, the ability to identify colors was irrespective of the color names of each language. Yet, as discussed, the differences in perception occur when comparing colors that straddle discrete color boundaries compared to those that do not. After updating Rosch’s methodology, Roberson and colleagues (2000) found evidence of linguistic relativity in a group similar to the Dani.
Some research suggests that color perception differences between those who speak different languages are not due to the language, but to the environmental factors that affect vision. Lindsey and Brown (2002) suggest an alternative interpretation of categorical perception in perceiving the color blue. In a number of languages, there is no term for what in English is termed blue. This lack of a color term causes quicker reaction times when discerning between colors one each side of the blue-green boundary. Yet, Lindsey and Brown (2002) suggest that categorical perception differences are due to deteriorated visual acuity in people exposed to more UV-B sunlight rays. When asked to do a categorical perception task through a brunescent lens to simulate change in color perception with exposure to UV-B rays, English-speakers displayed longer reaction times to discerning colors on each side of the blue-green boundary than when asked to do the task through a clear lens. When doing the task through a clear lens, the English-speakers showed categorical perception differences such that it took them less time to discern colors of equal distance across the bluegreen boundary than to discern colors of equal distance within the blue or green boundary. This evidence suggests that categorical perception at the blue-green color boundary is not due to the terms for colors, but instead to loss of visual acuity in people living in regions with high sunlight exposure.
Language universalists (i.e., those who do not support the Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis) provide evidence that toddlers demonstrate categorical perception before learning language acquisition (Bornstein et al., 1976; Franklin & Davies, 2004; Franklin, Clifford, Williamson, & Davies, 2004). For example, toddlers between the ages of 2 and 4 exhibited categorical perception (Franklin et al, 2004). Furthermore, categorical perception showed a negative relationship with linguistic knowledge such that the more language a child knew, the less difference in time to discern between colors straddling a category boundary and colors within a category boundary.
Language universalists also provide evidence that categorical perception in the left hemisphere is not due to language, but instead to the left hemisphere’s preference for categorization. Holmes & Wolff (2012) provided participants with a categorical perception task either with or without linguistic labels. When presented in the right visual field, participants showed significantly greater categorical perception, consistent with previous research in support of linguistic relativity (Lu et al., 2012; Gilbert et al., 2005; Regier & Kay, 2009). Yet, the effect was present with and without linguistic labels, drawing into question whether it is the left hemisphere’s language-dominance or categorical tendencies that lead to right visual field categorical perception.
In relation to spatial cognition, research suggests that the preference for spatial cues is not based on those primarily used in one’s L1 language, but instead to ecological cues available (Li & Gleitman, 2002). Studies supporting linguistic relativity in spatial cognition, Li and Gleitman suggest, are due to whether the methodology was completed outside or inside. Thus, people use different cues in different environments.
Others point out the difficulty in differentiating cultural experience from linguistic relativity (Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun, & Levinson, 2004.) For example, Whorf (1956) hypothesized that because Eskimos have a number of words for snow, Eskimos perceive snow differently. However, perception may be informed by experience, not linguistic labels. In Bahasa Malaysia, speakers have a number of words to describe saltiness. In a study between English speakers and Malaysian speakers, Malaysian speakers were significantly better at discriminating between degrees of saltiness than English speakers (O’Mahony & Muhiudeen, 1977). Is this a difference in linguistic labels or cultural experience with saltier foods? The answer has yet to be found. As discussed earlier, it is difficult to differentiate between differences in event recall due to language and due to culture (Fausey & Boroditsky; 2011). Culture and language are confounded; separating the two presents difficulties for supporting the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis.
Summary
The Sapir-Whorfing linguistic relativity hypothesis is critiqued in the literature both methodologically and theoretically. Research against the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis suggests that it is phototoxicity, rather than linguistic relativity, producing observed categorical perception differences (Lindsey & Brown, 2002). Research also provides evidence of categorical perception prior to language acquisition, suggesting that linguistic relativity may be confounded with other factors (e.g., Franklin & Davies, 2004). Even with objects without linguistic labels, the left hemisphere demonstrates more categorical perception than its counterpart, speaking to the left hemisphere’s acclimation to categorization (Holmes & Wolff, 2012). Critiques of spatial cognition research point to methodological flaws and suggest children use environmental cues regardless of language preference (Li & Gleitman, 2002). Similarly, researchers point out that it is difficult to
differentiate between cultural effects and those linked to language, as in the study of event recall among Spanish and English speakers (Fausey & Boroditsky, 2011).
For and Against
After Rosch’s study in 1972, support for linguistic relativity dwindled. Yet, the present literature for linguistic relativity present a strong case and seems to far outweighs the case for linguistic universality. Critiques of the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis draw attention to methodological flaws and overlooked factors, such as environmental effects on vision. Yet, evidence for linguistic relativity ranging from color to musical pitch suggests that, when processed using language centers, perception is altered by language. There is still question of how to tease apart language-specific effects from carryover from other languages (e.g., German –er ending used in interpretation of English words). Support for the strong Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (i.e., language limits ability to think in certain ways) has all but disappeared. Instead, researchers have focused on the weak Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (i.e., language makes certain thoughts and perception more accessible). The outgrowth of linguistic relativity research has even drawn in researchers formerly opposed to the Sapir-Whorfing hypothesis (Daoutis, Franklin, Riddett, Clifford, & Davies, 2006; Drivonikou, Kay, Regier, Ivry, Gilbert, Franklin, & Davies, 2007). Linguistic effects on perception have been documented in a sprinkling of domains. However, continued study of linguistic relativity is important especially in the context of globalization, cross-cultural interaction, and seeking social equity.
Case Study: Shifting Pronoun Use in Vietnamese
Research on linguistic relativity suggests language differences may elucidate east-west cultural differences. Various forms of information are encoded in language. Therefore, that dialectical thinking and interdependence is embedded in linguistic properties is not so far-fetched. Language may play an influential role in social perception. In Vietnamese, the self-referential pronoun depends on the age and gender of the person being spoken to. In light of the present research on linguistic relativity, the parallel between language and East Asian cultures begs the question of whether language influences social perception in this domain. Do pronoun rules shape people to think dialectically and interdependently about themselves and others? If social perception responds to pronoun use, this has the potential to change how gender equity and egalitarian relationships are sought. That is, if pronoun use changes selfperception, then the submissive pronoun use may be a detriment for those seeking egalitarian relationships. Self-concepts affect behavior. Thus, for women, self-perception shifts evoked by submissive pronoun use could have deleterious behavioral consequences.
References
Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
Argyle, M., Shimoda, K., & Little, B. (1978). Variance due to persons and situations in England and Japan. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 335-337.
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83-95. doi:10.1017/S136672890800388X
Athanasopoulos, P., Damjanovic, L., Krajciova, A., & Sasaki, M. (2011). Representation of colour concepts in bilingual cognition: The case of Japanese Blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 9-17. doi:10.1017/S1366728909990046
Athanasopoulos, P., Dering, B., Wiggett, A., Kuipers, J., & Thierry, G. (2010). Perceptual shift in bilingualism: Brain potentials reveal plasticity in pre-attentive colour perception. Cognition, 116, 437-443. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.016
Bornstein, M. H., Kessen, W., & Weiskopf, S. (1976). Color vision and hue categorization in young human infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 115-129. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.1.115
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2010). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123-129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the study of Language and Cognition (pp. 61-80). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
Boutonnet B., Athanasopoulos, P. & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious effects of grammatical gender during object categorisation. Brain Research, 1479, 72-79. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.08.044
Caskey-Sirmons, L. A., & Hickson, N. P. (1977). Semantic shift and bilingualism: Variation in the color terms of five languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 19, 358-367.
Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Parrish, T. B.,Sadato, N., & Iidaka, T. (2009). Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1-11. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21192
Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 12629-12633.
Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., Takahashi, J.A. (2006). Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, 137-152.
Daoutis, C. A., Franklin, A., Riddett, A., Clifford, A., & Davies, I. L. (2006). Categorical effects in children's colour search: A cross-linguistic comparison. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 373-400. doi:10.1348/026151005X51266
de Groot, A. B., Delmaar, P., & Lupker, S. J. (2000). The processing of interlexical homographs in translation recognition and lexical decision: Support for non-selective access to bilingual memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 53A, 397-428. doi:10.1080/027249800390547
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496-518. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
Dijkstra, T., Van Jaarsveld, H., & Ten Brinke, S. (1998). Interlingual homograph recognition: Effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 51-66.
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (in press). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science.
Drivonikou, G. V., Kay, P. P., Regier, T. T., Ivry, R. B., Gilbert, A. L., Franklin, A. A., & Davies, I. L. (2007). Further evidence that Whorfian effects are stronger in the right visual field than the left. PNAS Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,104, 1097-1102. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610132104
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473, 79-82. doi:10.1038/nature09923
Fausey, C. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 150-157. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5
Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819-824. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007
Franklin, A., Clifford, A., Williamson, E., & Davies, I. (2005). Color term knowledge does not affect categorical perception of color in toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 114-141. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.10.001
Franklin, A., & Davies, I. L. (2004). New evidence for infant colour categories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 349-377. doi:10.1348/0261510041552738
Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430-1451. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x
Fuhrman, O., McCormick, K., Chen, E., Jiang, H., Shu, D., Mao, S., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). How linguistic and cultural forces
shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science, 35, 1305-1328. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01193.x
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 150-157. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5
Gilbert, A. L., Regier, T., Kay, P., &, Ivry, R. B. (2005). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 489–494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509868103
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical Cognition Without Words: Evidence
from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496-499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492
Harnad, S. (1987) Psychophysical and cognitive aspects of categorical perception: A critical overview. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 1-28). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haun, D. M., Rapold, C. J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition, 119, 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009
Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 10-20. doi:10.1037/h0032606
Helmreich, I., Zuber, J., Pixner, S., Kaufmann, L., Nuerk, H., & Moeller, K. (2011). Language effects on children’s nonverbal number line estimations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 598-613. doi:10.1177/0022022111406026
Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2012). Does categorical perception in the left hemisphere depend on language? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 439-443. doi:10.1037/a0027289
Imai, M. (2000).Universal ontological knowledge and a bias toward language specific categories in the construal of individuation. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (pp.139-160). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition ,62, 169-200. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6
Kousta, S., 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, 843-858. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.843
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83, 265-294. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4
Lindsey, D. T., & Brown, A. M. (2002). Color naming and the phototoxic effects of sunlight on the eye. Psychological Science, 13, 506-512. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00489
Lu, A., Hodges, B. H., Zhang, J., Wang, X. (2012). A Whorfian speed bump? Effects of Chinese color names on recognition across hemispheres. Language Sciences, 34, 591-603. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.014
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108-114. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003
Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama and H. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture (pp. 89-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922-934. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922
Miura, K. (1994). Fifth graders' behaviors in mathematics classes—Its differences by achievement level and sex. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 174-184.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently ... and why. New York: The Free Press.
O'Mahony, M. M., & Muhiudeen, H. H. (1977). A preliminary study of alternative taste languages using qualitative description of sodium chloride solutions: Malay versus English. British Journal of Psychology, 68, 275-278. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1977.tb01588.x
Patterson, M. L., Iizuka, Y., Tubbs, M. E., Ansel, J., Tsutsumi, M., & Anson, J. (2007). Passing encounters east and west: Comparing Japanese and American pedestrian interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31,155-166. doi:10.1007/s10919-007-0028-4
Pavlenko, A. (2011) Thinking and speaking in two languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J. & Zhong, N. (2005). Naive dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese thought. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, & G. Huang, (Eds.), The Handbook of indigenous and cultural psychology (pp. 247- 262). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Pixner, S. S., Moeller, K. K., Hermanova, V. V., Nuerk, H. C., & Kaufmann, L.L. (2011). Whorf reloaded: Language effects on nonverbal
number processing in first grade —a trilingual study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 371-382. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.002
Pronin, E., Berger, J., & Molouki, S. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 585-595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.585
Regier, T., & Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 439-446. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.001
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 369-398. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.369
Sapir, E. E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace.
Sato, S., Gygax, P., & Gabriel, U. (in press). Gender Inferences: Grammatical features and their impact on the representation of gender in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.
Scheutz, M. J., & Eberhard, K. M. (2004). Effects of morphosyntactic gender features in bilingual language processing. Cognitive Science, 28, 559-588. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.03.001
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. (2004). Dialectical selfesteem and east-west differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1416-1432. doi:10.1177/0146167204264243
Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.