Cover not available

In:Multilingual Cognition and Language Use: Processing and typological perspectives
Edited by Luna Filipović and Martin Pütz
[Human Cognitive Processing 44] 2014
► pp. 17–44

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Methodological approaches in the study of linguistic relativity

Corpus method and cognitive theory

ORCiD logo with link
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.44.01luc
Empirical research on linguistic relativity faces three methodological challenges. First, it must identify and characterize a language contrast where the semantic structures of different languages produce distinct referential interpretations. Second, on the basis of those language patterns it must articulate specific cognitive entailments or predictions and then assess for evidence of their presence in cognitive activity. And third, it must establish the influence or shaping role of language on the cognitive patterns by using an array of strategic assessments that make competing accounts of the cognitive patterns unlikely. This chapter reviews these challenges, outlines strategies available to address them, and provides examples of each. The examples are all drawn from research on patterns of number marking.
References (44)
Athanasopoulos, Panos. 2006. Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 9: 89–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 689–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Cognitive restructuring in bilingualism. In A. Pavlenko, ed., Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages , 29–65. Bristol, Buffalo, & Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barner, David, Shunji Inagaki, & Peggy Li. 2009. Language, thought, and real nouns. Cognition 111: 329–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bassetti, Benedetta & Vivian Cook. 2011. Relating language and cognition: The second language user. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti, eds., Language and Bilingual Cognition 143–190. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. The nature of the linguistic sign. In Problems in General Linguistics , 43–48. Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, & Eric Lenneberg. 1954. A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49: 454–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel, Olga Fotokopolou, Ria Pita, Lera Boroditsky. In prep. How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English and Greek. Cognition .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian J., & Benedetta Bassetti. 2011. Language and Bilingual Cognition . Abingdon: ­Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian J., Benedetta Bassetti, Chise Kasai, Miho Sasaki, & Jun Arata Takahashi. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosjean, F.1998. Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 131–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, ZhaoHong, & Teresa Cadierno, eds. 2010. Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, ZhaoHong. 2010. Grammatical morpheme inadequacy as a function of linguistic relativity: A longitudinal case study. In Z. Han & T. Cadierno, eds., Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking , 154–182. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, Austin Bradford. 1965. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295–300.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffman, Charlotte. 1991. An Introduction to Bilingualism . London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi. 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 , 139–160. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, & Dedre Gentner. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62: 169–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, & Reiko Mazuka. 2003. Reevaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow, eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 429–464. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language , 398–429. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott, & Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition . New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Peggy, Yarrow Dunham, & Susan Carey. 2009. Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal, Cognitive Psychology 58: 487–524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1992a. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis[Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 12] . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992b. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis [Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 13] . ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. The role of semantic value in lexical comparison: Motion and position roots in Yucatec Maya. Linguistics 32: 623–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson, eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , 37–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997a. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997b. The linguistics of ‘color’. In C. Hardin & L. Maffi, eds., Color Categories in Thought and Language , 320–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Semantic Accent and Linguistic Relativity . Conference on Cross-linguistic Data and Theories of Meaning, Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 20May.
. 2004. Language, culture, and mind in comparative perspective. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer, eds., Language, Culture, and Mind , 1–21. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Language structure, lexical meaning, and cognition: Whorf and Vygotsky revisited. In B. Malt & P. Wolff, eds., Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience , 268–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Language and cognition: The view from anthropology. In V. Cook & B. ­Bassetti, eds., Language and Bilingual Cognition , 43–68. Abingdon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucy, John A., & Suzanne Gaskins. 2001. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In S. Levinson & M. Bowerman, eds., Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development , 257–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow, eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought , 465–492. ­Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In prep. Language development and linguistic relativity. Language and Cognition: A Journal of Language and Cognitive Science .
Lucy, John A., & Richard Shweder. 1988. The effects of incidental conversation on memory for focal colors. American Anthropologist 90: 923–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Semantics. Volume 1 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazuka, Reiko, & Ronald S. Friedman. 2000. Linguistic relativity in Japanese and English: Is language the primary determinant in object classification? Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 353–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2011. Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages . Bristol, Buffalo, & Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Regier, Terry, & Paul Kay. 2009. Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 439–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1987. Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 435–445.
. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson, eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin. 1956. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J. B. Carroll ­, ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf , 134–159. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1941.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Chi Pech, Jaime Inocencio
2024. Using cognitive measures from linguistic relativity research to assess thinking in Yucatec Maya-Spanish bilingual children. First Language 44:6 ► pp. 708 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Yi & Li Wei
2022. Thinking and Speaking in a Second Language, DOI logo
Feinmann, Diego
2020. Language and Thought in the Motion Domain: Methodological Considerations and New Empirical Evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 49:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mueller Gathercole, Virginia C
2020. Preface: Special issue on semantic representation and processing in bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 24:3 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Mueller Gathercole, Virginia C, Hans Stadthagen-González & Samia Mercedes DeCubas
2020. Eye tracking investigation into semantic convergence in fully fluent Spanish–English bilingual adults. International Journal of Bilingualism 24:3 ► pp. 508 ff. DOI logo
Thiering, Martin
2020. Sprachliche Relativität. In Handbuch Sprachkritik, ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Filipović, Luna
2019. Bilingualism in Action, DOI logo
Lucy, John A.
2016. Recent Advances in the Study of Linguistic Relativity in Historical Context: A Critical Assessment. Language Learning 66:3 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue