王皓

Comment on Vigliocco，G.et al.（2005） and Review on Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Does language shape thought？ The question derived from Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has never been easy to answer with certainty.Nevertheless，the attempts and trials of tackling this question seldom stops.The Vigliocco et al.paper “Grammatical gender effects on cognition： implications for language learning and language use” is one of those researches.Four experiments were conducted to address the mechanisms by which grammatical gender may come to affect meaning.It was concluded that 1） gender effects arise as a generalization from an established association between gender of nouns and sex of human referents，extending to nouns referring to sexuated entities.And 2） these effects during processing arise at a lexical-semantic level rather than at a conceptual level，in other words，grammatical gender only has effects on lexical meaning，but not on nonlinguistic behaviors.

Research questions

The researchers tested two hypotheses by which gender effects may arise：

（1）Gender effects arise as a consequence of similarity in linguistic context （similarity and gender hypothesis）.

（2）Gender effects arise as a generalization from transparent relationship between sex and human referents and gender of nouns （sex and gender hypothesis）.

These two hypotheses were tested by investigating the gender system of two languages： Italian and German.

Experiments

A series of 4 experiments investigating Italian and German were presented using tasks sensitive to meaning similarity.Experiment 1 and 2 tested the two hypotheses for Italian speakers.Experiment 3 replicated experiment 1 in German as an additional test of the hypothesis.Experiment 4 used pictures to test the extent of gender effects.

Conclusion

The 4 experiments were designed to address the strength and pervasiveness of language-specific grammatical gender effects on semantic representations for the corresponding objects.It was found that language-specific effects were highly constrained： limited to a language with a two-gender system （Italian）； limited to tasks that require verbalization and they were observed in certain semantic categories （animals） and not others （artifacts） in Italian.

Comment and Review on Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Vigliocco et al.research found the presence of an effect was only for linguistic tasks，which led them to believe that thinking for speaking only has effects on tasks that engage linguistic coding，at least for grammatical gender.

However，besides the consensus that grammatical gender can affect meaning，some researchers do believe that talking about inanimate objects as if they were masculine or feminine leads people to think of them as masculine or feminine.A possible way that the effects work is that in order to effectively learn the grammatical gender of a noun，people focus on some property of that nouns referent that may pick it out as masculine or feminine.And even after the grammatical genders of nouns are learned，language may influence thought during thinking for speaking.The need to refer to an object as masculine or feminine may lead people to selectively attend to that objects masculine or feminine qualities，thus making them more salient （Boroditsky，et al.2003）.

This divergence leads us to revisit the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis here.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis （also called Whorfian Hypothesis or the linguistic relativity） states that language influences thoughts.In its strongest form，the hypothesis states that language controls both the thought and perception.Several experiments have shown that this is not necessarily true.The weaker form of the hypothesis，which states that language influences form，has remained unanswered due to its vagueness.Models of cognition developed after Whorfs day indicate ways in which thought can be influenced by cultural variations in the lexical，syntactical，semantic，and pragmatic aspects of language （Hunt，et al.1991）.

Kay cited Browns summary for Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in one of his publications：

“Whorf appeared to put forward two hypotheses：

I Structural differences between language systems will，in general，be paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences，of an unspecified sort，in the native speakers of the two languages.

II The structure of anyones native language strongly influences and fully determines the world-view he will acquire as he learns the language” （Kay & Kempton 1984）.

As was mentioned，the “does language shape thought？” question has been difficult to answer because it is so imprecise.A different phrasing was suggested by Slobin （1996），who replaced “language” and “thought” with “speaking”，“thinking”，and “thinking for speaking”.It can be interpreted as language （grammar + lexicon） affecting an internal cognition representation （Bohnemeyer 2008）.

The Vigliocco et al.research showed disagreement to this effect by holding that the grammatical gender only affects lexical meaning but not nonlinguistic presentations.However，grammatical gender is merely one property of language.Investigations in other domains，such as conception of time and color categorization have provided a different answer to the question.

Researches have shown that language-specific effects have significant influence on speakers conception of time.Boroditsky conducted three experiments addressing English and Mandarin speakers conception of time.The feature of time in English and Mandarin is different.English talks about time as if it were horizontal，while Mandarin commonly describes time as vertical.This difference between two languages is reflected in the way their speakers think about time.In one experiment，Mandarin speakers tended to think about time vertically even when they were thinking in English.Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin-English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old when they started to learn English.In the third experiment，native English speakers were taught to talk about time using vertical spatial terms in a way similar to Mandarin.In a subsequent test，this group of English speakers showed the same bias to think about time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers.The results showed that language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains and ones native language plays an important role in shaping habitual thought （Boroditsky 2001）.

For another domain，color naming，there exists a classic debate between the “universals” and “relativity”.The relativists hold that our perception of the world is shaped by the semantic categories of our native language，and that these categories vary across languages with little constraint.And the universals hold instead that there is a universal repertoire of thought and perception that leaves its imprints on the languages of the world.Consensus has swung back and forth between the two stances over the years （Regier & Kay 2009）.

The debate over color naming and color cognition has been framed by two questions：

1.Is color naming across languages largely a matter of arbitrary linguistic conventions？

2.Do cross-language differences in color naming cause corresponding differences in color cognition？

A “relativist” argues that both answers are “yes”，and a “universalist” both “no”.However，several recent studies have undermined these traditional stances.These studies suggest instead that there are universal tendencies in color naming but that naming differences across languages do cause differences in color cognition （Kay & Regier 2006）.The universalist-relativist opposition is no longer considered helpful as a conceptual structuring device，since it does not accommodate the realities.

Although the strong version of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis—that thought and action are entirely determined by language—has long been abandoned，the weaker version—language shapes thought，or，thinking for speaking has been proved valid by researches，no matter for linguistic tasks （as in the Vigliocco et al.research） or nonlinguistic activities （such as time conceiving and color naming）.

Reference：

[1]Bohnemeyer，J.（2008） Thinking for speaking.Lecture，Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center，University of Chicago and Northwestern University.

[2]Boroditsky，L.（2001） Does language shape thought？ Mandarin and English speakers conception of time.Cognitive Psychology.

[3]Boroditsky，L.，et al.（2003） Sex，syntax，and semantics.In Gentner，D.& Goldin-Meadow，S.（Eds.）

[4]Hunt，E.et al.（1991） The Whorfian hypothesis： a cognitive psychology perspective.Psychological Review.

[5]Kay，P.& Kempton，W.（1984） What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis？ American Anthropologist.

[6]Kay，P.& Regier，T.（2006） Language，thought and color： recent developments.Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]Regier，T.& Kay，P.（2009） Language，thought，and color： Whorf was half right.Trends in Cognitive Sciences.