~i (;e~{/Jet- t D. / ~ GOL D{N-Mr;APotV I S. (~DS. ) / ll4fUGMGc:rtu /}1IAJi): I/-D VA1Jces:If'J -rt/t:= -'s-rUf) ~ of LI'T;. J6~/f(;cA-V o -tHt){16tt-t; c. " M 13te/ D 6{;:I ItA IIfVl If 7Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic RelativityDan 1. Slobin frze~5. (Z06 '3) 7. 1 Introduction literature on linguistic relativity has concerned languages itself The voluminous primarily with the search for influences of particular on non- linguistic cognition in situations in which language is not being used, overtly or covertly. This represents a long tradition in which anthroand linguists have sought to relate grammatical or epistemology or of speakers of the language. For example, Lucy for studies of linguistic relativity. He assess the cognitive that are detected performance "should pologists, psychologists, culture of the community has proposed stipulates establish emphasis concepts individual thinking. of individual and semantic systems of a language to the worldview a set of requirements that such research speakers aside from explicitly verbal contexts and try to also characterize of an that any cognitive patterns added).
of cognition world alone. States in culture, and much of culture is carriedTherefore, the definition of the physical balance indeed, constructed-by not be restricted for example, language. that to phenomena the political in the United lexemes, such as the compass-point terms or landmark shifts, and Spanish becomes the official language. Americans have to know-in every encounter-who the language would force our attenti
This is evident within any given language, because the same situation can be described in different ways; and it is evident across languages, because each language provides a limited set of options for the grammatical encoding of characteristics of objects and events. "Thinking for speaking" involves picking those characteristics that (a) fit some conceptualization of the event, and (b) are readily encodable in the language. (Slobin 1987, 435) The online effects of language on thought by psychologists, issues of language that "there "wrong, their speakers' processes have been noticed to the classical shape is Pinker (1994, 58) writes dramatically hypothesis in their messages for-speaking way, whereas Spanish and Japanese speakers must use a tripartite cations for perception represent situations code" (1989, 103-104). effects are weak, not dramatic, or conceptualization to themselves; and have no further impliof objects and events. "weak, undramatic" It is, of course, exceptionally effects are not without tive attention difficult to determine how people "really" furthermore, I wish to argue that serious event characteristics.
(Pinker 1989, 360) In Levelt's "preverbal (1989) production model, the "Conceptualizer" sends a some sort. Every utterance background is obligatory "friend" knowledge. ing it to the receiver to fill in details on the basis of ongoing context and Part of the background is a knowledge of what or typical of the language being used. If I tell you about my pronouns in message" to the "Formulator. " Levelt considers semantic dif- in English, you will expect that sooner or later you will discover ferences between languages in this model: the sex of the friend, because you know that third-person English indicate gender. If I go on and on to refer only to "my friend" or 160 Slobin Language and Thought Online 161 "they, " you will begin to suspect that I have reason to conceal the perin a language such as Turkish or Chinese or Hungar- son's gender. However, ian, you probably my thinking its communicative if we have the same conversation 1. The research addresses a selection of languages and a semantic domain that is encoded with some frequency in all of the languages.
without that are almost constantly attention Accordingly, is incomplete A final issue to be raised is whether messages must, to some degree, be tuned to, the target language. Will a message for an English Formulator have to differ from one that is fed into a Dutch Formulator, merely because of language-specific requirements? The answer... is positive: Using a particular language requires the speaker to think of particular conceptual features. (Levelt 1989, 71) Pinker, Levelt, and others, particular however, stress that online thinking while Pinker cesses that are brought 7. 2 Thinking to bear, online, in the course of using language. speaking is an encapsulated for Speaking productions across languages, it has become time. Comparing lying meanings] process, with no consequences beyond speech English and Dutch verb constructions, concludes that "it seems unlikely that the Dutch conceive of [the underIn research on narrative differently from us, except at the moment that they have (1989, 358).
everyday behavior outside of the assessment situation" (Lucy 1996, 48;In this view, "cognition" is seen as a collection of whether listening, and procedures that come into play regardless is engaged in verbal behavior-speaking, or verbal Such research is directed toward what Lucy calls "an indepenof reality" (Lucy 2000, xii). A rather differis provided by investigators who concern Gumto "cognition" dent cognitive interpretation ent approach themselves with language use and cultural practice. For example, perz and Levinson, introducing 8), underline the importance of "theories of use in context, " Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (1996, including Theory, Situation anthropology. In formal semantic theories (e. g., Discourse Representation Semantics) and pragmatic along with research in sociolinguistics and linguistic theories (Relevance Theory, Gricean theories), 158 Slobin Language and Thought Online I begin with the fact that human beings spend a large porof one sort or another; involved in preparing, research on to the cognitive pro- 159 this chapter, tion of their time engaging that is, we are creatures producing, linguistic relativity and interpreting in linguistic behavior verbal messages.
As I've scientific interest. for particular study of language in use points to pervasive effects of language on selecand memory argued in greater detail elsewhere (Slobin 1996a, 2000), whatever effects language may have when people are not speaking activity that goes on while formulating Utterances represented trivial or obvious, and it deserves our attention. are not verbal filmclips of events. An event cannot be fully in language: linguistic expression requires schematization of leavrepresents a selection of characteristics, or listening, the mental utterances is not and interpreting although not seen as centrally important and cognition. For example, is no scientific evidence that languages ways of thinking" (p. 57). But he has also noted: and that the Sapir-Whorf all wrong" Whorf was surely wrong when he said that one's language determines how one conceptualizes reality in general. But he was probably correct in a much weaker sense: one's language does determine how one must conceptualize reality when one has to talk about it.
And Levelt, comparing deictic concludes, "It is highly unlikely... that English distance information for exclear to me that "we encounter is a process of "thinking the contents of the mind in a special way plays a dyto express them in words" terms across languages, Japanese pression, speakers. when they are being accessed for use" (Slobin 1987, 435). That is, there for speaking" in which cognition namic role within the framework of linguistic expression: and Dutch speakers perceive distance to ego differently than Spanish and But when they prepare in a bipartite English and Dutch speakers must represent that information In brief, thinking- The activity of thinking takes on a particular quality when it is employed in the activity of speaking. In the evanescent time frame of constructing utterances in discourse, one fits one's thoughts into available linguistic forms. A particular utterance is never a direct reflection of "objective" or perceived reality or of an inevitable and universal mental representation of a situation.
Bamberg, M. G. W ( 1987) The acquisition of narrative: Learning to use language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bamberg, M., & Marchman, V ( 1990) What holds a narrative together? The linguistic encoding of episode boundaries. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1/2), pp. 58-121. BoP Boas, F ( 1911) Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bulletin 40, Part I, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D. C. : Government Printing Office. [Reprinted in P. Holder (Ed. ), 1966). F. Boas Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages / J. W. Powell, Indian linguistic families of America North of Mexico. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ] Bowerman, M ( 1989) Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositions play? In M. L. Rice & R. Schieffelbusch (Eds. ), The teachability of language (pp. 133-169). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Mayer, M ( 1969) Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press. Pinker, S ( 1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure.
2. The semantic under comparison. 3. The domain is relatively more codable in some of the languages compared. 4. The research addresses a selection of discourse situations in which the semantic domain is regularly accessed. Point 2 ensures that the domain is one that is habitually encoded in some of the languages. grammatical obligatory However, it allows for habitual encoding either by terms in means (morphological orientation elements, construction (Levinson types) or by 1996a, b, to be domain is encoded by special grammatical construc- that has no gendered pronouns, for speaking-my significance, will not have such suspicions. When speaking English, Conceptualizer-is with real-world tuned to gender and is simihere, but as far as I cognition and your "listening for thinking" of mental representations. and cultural cognition tions or obligatory lexical selections in at least some of the languages larly tuned. We are not concerned with the ongoing construction know, although our social is embedded nition of gender does not change Communication should Imagine, Our basic cog- when we switch languages, may well change.