Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Cultural language and thought.

The relationship of language to thought has been debated in cross-cultural psychology for some time. Since each culture is expressed through a unique language, perhaps the lexical content and grammatical rules also affect thinking. Culture affects languages, but does the language of a culture also affect thinking processes? The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a proposition that with some face validity argues that variances in languages produce differences in cognition. If true, cultures experience reality in different ways as all societies are dependent on the tools of language for perception and expression. Similar situations may be perceived differently because of variations in language structure, lexical content, and grammatical rules. Language relativity raises the issue of whether we can ever translate deeper cultural meanings accurately from one language to another. Do bilingual speakers experience different realities depending on which language they use?

The initial research compared European languages with those of Native Americans (Whorf, 1956). For example among Hopi Indians there are no words that refer to time which is perceived as a floating continuum. The closest idea to time in Hopi expressions are expressed by differences between objective and subjective reality. For the Hopi the subjective is that which is not manifest in the present like for example the “future” or “desire and hope”. In Hopi there are no subjective plurals, so Hopi speakers cannot indicate the number of days that pass between events, but rather would compare two events as differing in lateness.

The relationship of language to thinking processes and learning has received a great deal of attention (Levinson, 2006). The accessibility of certain complex concepts is language dependent. In turn the complexity of concepts depends on our ability to utilize a complex vocabulary. Languages in grammar form and lexical content vary profoundly producing cognitive differences between language speakers. Regier and Kay (2006) argued that linguistic differences are causational agents of cognitive differences in members of language groups and therefore more agentic than correlational. Although all humans are born with similar genetic constraints language learning have significant affects on our ability to think. Languages are representational systems that organize our cultural world and permit transmission of knowledge to succeeding generations.

Fishman (1960) investigated linguistic relativity at the lexical level and in the use of grammar among the Inuits . For example, Inuits have many words describing snow that is a salient component of their culture, and they can therefore differentiate its characteristics to a greater degree than people speaking English. Support for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was also found among Navajo speakers (Carroll & Casagrande, 1958). Research showed that because of the unique grammatical features of Navajo language that provided many words for the handling of objects Navajo children were more likely to categorize objects by shape than by color compared to English speaking children.



Another research project examined differences between Chinese and English speaking respondents (Bloom, 1981). English speakers can use counterfactual statements saying for example: “If I were rich… I would”. That statement implies that the speaker is not rich. Chinese on the other hand don’t have counterfactual expressions, and therefore must precede the comment with an explicit statement of fact: “I am not rich, therefore …”.This absence of counterfactual statements limits Chinese speakers in the use of counterfactual thinking, and according to Bloom may affect how the Chinese and English speakers think and categorize the world. However, Au (1983) found no cross-cultural differences between Chinese and English speakers, and the research literature has not definitively supported the affect of grammar on thinking. Vorster and Schuring (1989) also found no support in their study for the Sapir-Whorfian hypothesis.

The categorization of color has been used to test linguistic relativity. Color categorization permit an unambiguous testing of the Sapir-Whorfian hypotheses since it can be directly related to physical measurements. Many cultures do not have words that correspond to the basic eleven colors categorized in the English language (Berlin & Kay, 1969). However, Bornstein, Kessen, and Weiskopf (1976) showed that color categories for infants are the same as for adults supporting the primacy of perception rather than language in color perception. Their research on color perception did not lend support to linguistic relativity.

Kay and Kempton (1984) however found that the lexical (word) content of language mattered to color categorization. They compared the thought processes of respondents speaking Tarahumara in northern Mexico with English speakers and found a comparative difference in the discrimination of color. More recent studies (Schwanenflugel, 1995; Gordon, 2004) found support for the importance of cultural lexical knowledge in categorization processes and mathematical counting. Hoosain (1991) showed that particular elements of the Chinese language influence the relative ease of processing information.

Is it easier to discriminate and perceive subtle nuances in the real world when speakers have more words available in a language? Further, do multiple words referring to the same phenomenon make it easier to communicate in that language by describing specified nuances? Hunt and Agnoli (1991) found that the words available in a language could facilitate or inhibit the processing of certain types of information. Words available can make it easier to communicate in the language and either support or hinder thinking processes.

However, it would appear that support for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in comparative cross-cultural studies comes from a narrow area of research where language differences are directly relevant to perceptual or cognitive functioning. In an important review on linguistic relativity Pinker (1995) concluded that many of the studies reported above were severely flawed, noting for example that it is possible to think without words. Deaf children can think, and those who grow up without language invent one and engage in abstract thinking. These findings suggest that the brain is hardwired for language. Research has also supported the important role of nonverbal language and visual thinking in social cognition. Fishman (1960) concluded that lexical differences are not a strong influence on thinking, whereas grammar and pragmatics (the social context) are salient areas where language can influence cognition.


Date: 2015-01-11; view: 741


<== previous page | next page ==>
Cultural language difference and linguistic relativity. | Universals in language.
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.006 sec.)