First, it has an old pedigree. Second, it fascinates people, and has over the years given rise to many theories, some more plausible than others. As they say, the jury is still out on the more empirical claims concerning the influence of language of thought, and our goal has not been to argue in favor of one or another specific mechanism. Rather the aim has been to show that such influence is possible , in several different forms.
Our hope is that this conclusion, and the conceptual clarifications upon which it rests, may contribute to further careful investigations in order to establish which of these is actual. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. We also thank Alexander Lakow for some helpful comments on an intermediary version.
Finally, the comments of the two reviewers for this journal have led to significant improvements, for which we are grateful. Astington, J.
A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory-of-mind development. Berthele, R. Goschler and A. Stefanowitsch Amsterdam: John Benjamins , 55— Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Google Scholar. Blomberg, J. Zlatev, M. Johansson Falck, and C. Bloom, P. Thinking through language. Mind Lang. Boroditsky, L. Does language shape thought? Remembrances of times East: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community.
Bowerman, M. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. In memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition 4, — Carroll, J. Casasanto, D. Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Time in the mind: using space to think about time. Cognition , — Forbus, D. Gentner, and T. Coseriu, E. Lingusitic competence: what is it really? Croft, W. Typology and Universals , 2nd Edn. Dehaene, S. The Number Sense. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. Consciousness Explained. Toronto, ON: Little Brown. Paris: Payon. Durst-Andersen, P. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Ellis, J. Language, Thought, and Logic. Evans, N. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Everett, D. Gentner, D. Gopnik, A. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Grice, P. Cole and J. Griffin, D. New evidence of animal consciousness.
Gumperz, J. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Husserl, E. Dordrecht: Klewer. Hutto, D. Itkonen, E. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Researchers hypothesized that the number of color terms could limit the ways that the Dani people conceptualized color. A recent review of research aimed at determining how language might affect something like color perception suggests that language can influence perceptual phenomena, especially in the left hemisphere of the brain. You may recall from earlier chapters that the left hemisphere is associated with language for most people.
Learn more about language, language acquisition, and especially the connection between language and thought in the following CrashCourse video:. Improve this page Learn More. Skip to main content.
Thinking and Intelligence. Search for:. Language and Thinking Learning Objectives Explain the relationship between language and thinking. What Do You Think? The time-less people were the Hopi, a Native American tribe who live in north-eastern Arizona. Whorf claimed that they didn't have any words for time — no direct translation for the noun time itself, no grammatical constructions indicating the past or future — and therefore could not conceive of it.
They experienced reality in a fundamentally different way. The idea fascinated people: Whorf's work became popular "knowledge" but his credibility waned from the 60s onward. By the mids, linguist Ekkehart Milotki had published two enormous books in two languages discrediting the "time-less Hopi" idea.
Now, pronouncements like those made by Whorf and my airport companions make me instantly suspicious. If Whorf's theory sounds a little odd to you, a little politically incorrect, perhaps you're an anxious liberal like me; if you subscribe to it wholesale sometimes called the "strong" version of the hypothesis , you are consigning people from different speaking communities to totally different inner lives.
Which sounds, well, racist. The idea that people who speak some particular language are incapable of certain kinds of thought is instinctively distasteful. From the very first, scientific testing of Whorf's hypothesis seemed to prove him wrong. His idea that people cannot conceive of realities for which they have no words just doesn't make sense: how would we ever learn anything if that were true?
We aren't born with words for everything that we understand. Whorf was of a different time: his research came out of older traditions of thinking about language that have lost cultural traction. One of the greatest abilities humans have is this — Language. For so long, people have treated words as mere labels for objects, and languages as different ways to string words together to convey thoughts, feelings, and concepts.
But language is more than that. Because of it, we can exchange complex thoughts and ideas with one another, whether it be spoken aloud or written in ink. There are more than 7, that exist today! And all these languages differ from one another in all kinds of ways; they all have different sounds, vocabularies, and structures. This, now, begs the question: Does language influence the way we think?
Many have suggested that it does! It widens our perspective, deepens our knowledge, and changes the way we perceive the world. But how is that? This means that the language you speak reflects what your values and beliefs are.
0コメント