This is the first textbook on the linguistic relativity hypothesis, presenting it in user-friendly language, yet analyzing all its premises in systematic ways. The hypothesis claims that there is an intrinsic interconnection between thought, language, and society. All technical terms are explained and a glossary is provided at the back of the volume. The book looks at the history and different versions of the hypothesis over the centuries, including the research paradigms and critiques that it has generated. It also describes and analyzes the relevant research designed to test its validity in various domains of language structure and use, from grammar and discourse to artificial languages and in nonverbal semiotic systems as well. Overall, this book aims to present a comprehensive overview of the hypothesis and its supporting research in a textbook fashion, with pedagogical activities in each chapter, including questions for discussion and practical exercises on specific notions associated with the hypothesis. The book also discusses the hypothesis as a foundational notion for the establishment of linguistic anthropology as a major branch of linguistics. This essential course text inspires creative, informed dialogue and debate for students of anthropology,linguistics, cultural studies, cognitive science, and psychology.

Linguistic relativity is the claim that culture, through language, affects the way in which we think, and especially our classification of the experienced world. This book reexamines ideas about linguistic relativity in the light of new evidence and changes in theoretical climate. The editors have provided a substantial introduction that summarizes changes in thinking about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the light of developments in anthropology, linguistics and cognitive science. Introductions to each section will be of especial use to students.

About a century after the year Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941) was born, his theory complex is still the object of keen interest to linguists. Rencently, scholars have argued that it was not his theory complex itself, but an over-simplified, reduced section taken out of context that has become known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that has met with so much resistance among linguists over the last few decades. Not only did Whorf present his views much more subtly than most people would believe, but he also dealt with a great number of other issues in his work. Taking Whorf’s own notion of linguistic relativity as a starting point, this volume explores the relation between language, mind and experience through its historical development, Whorf’s own writing, its misinterpretations, various theoretical and methodological issues and a closer look at a few specific issues in his work.

The claim that crosslinguistic disparities foster differences in nonlinguistic thought, often referred to as 'linguistic relativity', has for some time been the subject of intense debate. For much of that time the debate was not informed by much experimental work. Recently, however, there has been an explosion of research on linguistic relativity, carried out by numerous scholars interested in the interaction between language and nonlinguistic cognition. This book surveys the rapidly accruing research on this topic, much of it carried out in the last decade. Structured so as to be accessible to students and scholars in linguistics, psychology, and anthropology, it first introduces crucial concepts in the study of language and cognition. It then explores the relevant experimentally oriented research, focusing independently on the evidence for relativistic effects in spatial orientation, temporal perception, number recognition, color discrimination, object/substance categorization, gender construal, as well as other facets of cognition. This is the only book to extensively survey the recent work on linguistic relativity, and should serve as a critical resource for those concerned with the topic.

This volume has arisen from the 26th International LAUD Symposium on “Humboldt and Whorf Revisited. Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualizations in Grammar and Lexis”. While contrasting two or more languages, the papers in this volume either provide empirical evidence confirming hypotheses related to linguistic relativity, or deal with methodological issues of empirical research.These new approaches to Whorf’s hypotheses do not focus on mere theorizing but provide more and more empirical evidence gathered over the last years. They prove in a very sophisticated way that Whorf’s ideas were very lucid ones, even if Whorf’s insights were framed in a terminology which lacked the flexibility of linguistic categories developed over the last quarter of this century, especially in cognitive linguistics. To date, there is sufficient proof to claim that linguistic relativity is indeed a vital issue, and the current volume confirms a more general trend for rehabilitating Whorf’s theory complex and also offers evidence for it. It contains articles written by scholars from various fields of linguistics including phonology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, historical linguistics, anthropological linguistics and (cross-)cultural semantics, which all contribute to a re-evaluation and partial reformulation of Whorf’s thinking.

An examination of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on the relationship between grammar and thought.

Japanese has a term that covers both green and blue. Russian has separate terms for dark and light blue. Does this mean that Russians perceive these colors differently from Japanese people? Does language control and limit the way we think? This short, opinionated book addresses the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that the language we speak shapes the way we perceive the world. Linguist John McWhorter argues that while this idea is mesmerizing, it is plainly wrong. It is language that reflects culture and worldview, not the other way around. The fact that a language has only one word for eat, drink, and smoke doesn't mean its speakers don't process the difference between food and beverage, and those who use the same word for blue and green perceive those two colors just as vividly as others do. McWhorter shows not only how the idea of language as a lens fails but also why we want so badly to believe it: we're eager to celebrate diversity by acknowledging the intelligence of peoples who may not think like we do. Though well-intentioned, our belief in this idea poses an obstacle to a better understanding of human nature and even trivializes the people we seek to celebrate. The reality -- that all humans think alike -- provides another, better way for us to acknowledge the intelligence of all peoples.