LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY

1 :291 312 Copyright RELATIVITYJohn A. ideas generate as much interest and controversy as the LINGUISTIC relativityhypothesis, the proposal that the particular language we speak influences theway we think about reality. The reasons are obvious: If valid it would havewidespread implications for understanding psychological and cultural life, forthe conduct of research itself, and for public policy. Yet through most of thiscentury, interest and controversy have not given rise to sustained programs of0084-6570/97/1015-0291$ Rev. Anthropol. :291-312. Downloaded from University of Notre Dame on 09/17/14. For personal use research in any of the concerned disciplines and, as a result, the va-lidity of the proposal has remained largely in the realm of speculation.

2 Thissituation has begun to change over the past decade, hence the occasion for LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY proposal forms part of the general question of howlanguage influences thought. Potential influences can be classed into threetypes or levels (Lucy 1996). The first, or semiotic, level concerns how speak-ing any natural language at all may influence thinking. The question is whetherhaving a code with a symbolic component (versus one confined to iconic-indexical elements) transforms thinking. If so, we can speak of a semiotic rela-tivity of thought with respect to other species lacking such a code. The second,or structural, level concerns how speaking one or more particular natural lan-guages ( Hopi versus English) may influence thinking.

3 The question iswhether quite different morphosyntactic configurations of meaning affectthinking about reality. If so, we can speak of a structural RELATIVITY of thoughtwith respect to speakers using a different language. This has been the level tra-ditionally associated with the term LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY , and this usage will beemployed here. The third, or functional, level concerns whether using lan-guage in a particular way ( schooled) may influence thinking. The questionis whether discursive practices affect thinking either by modulating structuralinfluences or by directly influencing the interpretation of the interactional con-text.

4 If so, we can speak of a functional RELATIVITY of thought with respect tospeakers using language differently. This level has been of particular interestduring the second half of this century with the increasing interest in discourse-level analyses of language and can, therefore, also be conveniently referred toas discursive this review concentrates on the second level whether structuraldifferences among languages influence thinking it should be stressed that theother two levels are ultimately involved. Any claims about LINGUISTIC relativityof the structural sort depend on accepting a loose isofunctionality acrossspeakers in the psychological mechanisms linking language to thinking andacross languages in the everyday use of speech to accomplish acts of descrip-tive reference (Hymes 1966, Lucy 1996).

5 More importantly, an adequate theo-retical treatment of the second level necessarily involves engaging substan-tively with the other two levels (Lucy 1996; Gumperz & Levinson 1996; cf Sil-verstein 1976, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1993).A number of recent publications have extensively reviewed the relevantsocial-science literature on LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY . Lucy (1992a) examines thehistorical and conceptual development of empirical research on the relation oflanguage diversity and thought within the fields of LINGUISTIC anthropology andcomparative psycholinguistics. Hill & Mannheim (1992) survey work on lan-292 LUCYAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. :291-312. Downloaded from University of Notre Dame on 09/17/14.

6 For personal use and world view in anthropology, sorting out the main traditions (espe-cially new work centered on interpretation and discourse) and indicating theirconnections with broader trends in anthropology. Hunt & Agnoli (1991) pro-vide an overview of current concerns from the perspective of cognitive psy-chology. Finally, Gumperz & Levinson (1996) provide an eclectic overviewand sampling of many of the newest directions of inquiry, again with substan-tial attention to discourse-level appearance of abundance given by the long lists of references in thesereviews is deceptive. Although the majority of the studies cited have somerelevance to evaluating the relation between language and thought, few ad-dress the RELATIVITY proposal directly or well.

7 In this context, there is little rea-son to re-inventory all these materials here. Rather, the current review pro-vides a conceptual framework for interpreting current research by clarifyingthe sources and internal structure of the hypothesis, characterizing the logic ofthe major empirical approaches, and analyzing the needs of future LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY HYPOTHESISH istorical Development of InterestInterest in the intellectual significance of the diversity of language categorieshas deep roots in the European tradition. Formulations recognizably related toour contemporary ones appear in England (Locke), France (Condillac, Did-erot), and Germany (Hamman, Herder) during the late seventeenth and earlyeighteenth centuries (Aarsleff 1982, 1988; Gumperz & Levinson 1996; seealso Friedrich 1986 on Vico in Italy).

8 They were stimulated by theoretical con-cerns (opposition to the tenets of universal grammarians regarding the originand status of different languages), methodological concerns (the reliability oflanguage-based knowledge in religion and science), and practical social con-cerns (European efforts to consolidate national identities and cope with colo-nial expansion). Later, nineteenth-century work, notably that of Humboldt inGermany and Saussure in Switzerland and France, drew heavily on this earliertradition and set the stage for twentieth-century approaches (Aarsleff 1982,1988).This European work was known and criticized by scholars in North Amer-ica (Aarsleff 1988, Koerner 1992), and the same impulses found histori-cally the patent relevance of language to human sociality and intellect, thereflexive concern with the role of language in intellectual method, and thepractical encounter with diversity remain important today in motivating at-tention to the problem.

9 But the LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY proposal received new im-petus and reformulation there in the early twentieth century, particularly in thework of anthropological linguists Edward Sapir (1949a,b, 1964) and BenjaminLINGUISTICRELATIVITY293 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. :291-312. Downloaded from University of Notre Dame on 09/17/14. For personal use Whorf (1956a,b) (hence the common designation of the LINGUISTIC relativityhypothesis as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ). Following Boas (1966), both Sa-pir and Whorf emphasized direct firsthand explorations of diverse languagesand rejected hierarchical, quasi-evolutionary rankings of languages and cul-tures in particular the European, especially Humboldtian, obsession with thesuperior value of inflectional languages for the cultural or mental advancementof a people.

10 Whorf also provided the first empirical work of consequence froma contemporary , there has been an almost complete absence of direct empiricalresearch through most of the present century perhaps half a dozen studies upto a decade ago (Lucy 1992a). The neglect of empirical work is so conspicuousthat it must be regarded as one of the central characteristics of this area of re-search and warrants brief comment. One source of the neglect surely lies in theinterdisciplinary nature of the problem itself which is compounded by increas-ing disciplinary specialization. But other, broader concerns play a role in dis-couraging research. Some worry that accepting LINGUISTIC relativism would ef-fectively undermine the conduct of most of the social sciences (but see Lucy1993a).