Mustansiriyah University

College of Arts

Translation Department

Linguistic relativity
A Mid-term Paper as partial requirement of the Course of

General Linguistics

Submitted by:

Yasameen Kanaan Abdulrazzaq

Jsmntransma18@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq

Course Tutor:

Prof. Mehdi AlGazalli (Ph. D)

2018
 Linguistic Relativity

Abstract

The concept of linguistic relativity influenced the field of linguistics for a long time,
even back to the eighteenth century, claiming that "if speech is the thought that expresses itself,
it must also be true that the intellect is internal and hidden". Later, Humboldt, And Sapir,
elaborated on this theory, and thus became largely responsible for the hypothesis of linguistic
relativity (or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). This controversial theory claims that language, which
reflects our culture, has a great influence on how one thinks. The hypothesis was originally a
fairly strong (or at least strongly interpreted) version; claiming that thought and culture were
intertwined, implying that "each language may claim to have been associated with a distinct
world view"

The main question when looking for linguistic relativity is the difference of languages
among people makes the way of thinking different among them. The emergence of research in
this question is due to the emergence of several researches on this question, in part to new
visions into the ways that language may affect thinking. We define seven categories of
hypotheses about the potential effects of language on thought across a wide range of fields,
including movement, color, spatial relationships, number, and misunderstanding.

While we do not find support for the idea that language defines the basic categories of
thought or replaces existing conceptual differences, we find support for the suggestion that
language can make it difficult to distinguish between certain differences, as well as suggesting
language proposal can increase certain types of thinking. Moreover, recent evidence
suggesting that language may stimulate a relatively schematic way of thinking can be
highlighted. Although the literature on linguistic relativity is still controversial, there is
growing support for the view that language has a profound influence on thought.

1 | Page
 1. Introduction
Popular psychology says that human cognition depends on language, and adds that this
relationship creates differences of thought across linguistic communities. Although it is often
mistaken, it seems that folk psychology is at least partly true in this case. In academia, such
axioms are referred to as linguistic relativity, or the Whorfian hypothesis, or the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis (Tomasello, 2017, 9. 15).

Language theory has three main ideas. First, it is assumed that languages can vary
greatly in their grammatical meanings and syntax, a hypothesis strongly supported by
linguistic, anthropological and psychological studies of the word and the actual meaning across
languages. Second, the proposal assumes that language connotation can affect the way in
which its speakers view and view the world, and the fully thought-out radical idea, a position
known as linguistic vitality. Third, since language can affect thinking, language relativity
suggests that speakers in different languages think differently (Barton, 2017, p. 28).

Today there are more than 5000 languages used by humans in the world. Some
languages have similarities or come from the same language as the Bedouin, some of which are
very different from others. Some opinions from former thinkers say that differences in each of
these languages affect differences in experience and thought. One of the ideas that are the basis
of human genetics is linguistic relativism (Evans & Levinson, 2009, p. 430).

Like other hypotheses of relativity, this hypothesis also developed in the late eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. This hypothesis was the subject of heated discussion among German
thinkers such as Johan George Haman (1730-1788), Johan Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) and
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835). This form of thought became known as the Whorf
hypothesis or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, such as the language name that made it common,
namely Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, his students. This hypothesis itself consists of
three concepts (Janney & Arndt, 1993, p. 35):

1. Linguistically, the languages in this world vary widely

2 | Page
 2. The structure of language will affect the way a person views and understands this
world.

3. Users of different languages will give different perspectives and opinions to the
world

This hypothesis is now more commonly called linguistic relativism, the clearest thread
that separates the view of Saphir-Whorf, whose basic concept is language-defined thought
(Alessandro Duranti,. 1977, p. 22). In the linguistic hypothesis of relativity, it is said that some
special aspects of language also affect human behavior. Many language components can
influence aspects of human behavior. Since the language dictionary affects the variety of
definitions and color sensing, the range of lexicons of distance or location affects recognition
of distance or positioning, etc. Some opinions say that linguistic differences determine
differences in views around the world. There are two perspectives around the world in the
hypothesis of relativity in linguistics (Rumbaugh et al., 2017, p. 12):

1. The existence of linguistic diversity

Languages that come from different proto languages are also different language components

2. Language influences thinking (the influence of language in thought)

The structure of the language and lexicon affects views and opinions around the world.

But Lucy tries to give a more rigorous line in determining this linguistic relativity. Lucy
reported 3 things (Lucy, 1977, p. 25):

1. Linguistic Relativity is not the same linguistic diversity that sees only the diversity of
languages in the world without linking to the concept of reason.

2. Linguistic Relativity is not a variety of influences on the concept of language in the mind.
Here we do not study the differences in the general effect of different languages on the
mind, but we study the psychological mechanism of some of the concepts of language
towards the mentality of the speaker.

3. Language relativity is not the same as cultural relativity, which emphasizes the existence of
a culture in terms of its history and its presence in society.

3 | Page
 There are many examples that confirm the hypothesis of Saphir-Whorf, such as
Turks who are accustomed to recounting whether they experience it themselves or not in more
detail, as if they have experienced it or witnessed it for themselves. They tell the events in the
world more comprehensively and comprehensively than the British. The discovery of the same
events with different language features and methods, to some extent, supports the reality of this
hypothesis (Widhiarso, 2009, p. 35).

Meanwhile, between the 1950s and 1960s, the hypothesis test over Brown Wallenberg
(1954) was to reveal the so-called basic color conditions in English. According to Berlin and
Kay, the colors that can be classified as basic colors are: (1) lexeme one (2) is not a product of
Other colors such as scarlet in English, a part of red color, (3) unlimited use, such as blond,
which is limited to hair and wood only, and (4) colors that can be included in the basic
category. These colorful conditions are those that emerge psychologically and are already
known by some societies (Blackmore, 2016, 48).

2. Literature review
2.1. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and Benjamin Lee Warf (1897-1941) discovered the idea
known as the Sapir-Warf hypothesis and developed it. Sapir and Whorf hypothesized that the
language we speak affects the way we see reality because classes and distinctions encoded in
one language are not always available in another language and are explained under the term
"linguistic relativity". The hypothesis was also interpreted by the researchers as supporting the
suggestion that differences in the structure of languages produced differences in the way
people thought and came under (language determinism).

However, the landscape did not completely define the relationship between thought
and language, whether it is thought that the language determines the thinking or only affects it.
Therefore, its lack of privacy, Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis has been controversial since it was
founded in the 1920s and 1930s (Brouček, 2013, p. 23).

Scholars in various disciplines, including anthropology, education, linguistics,

philosophy and psychology, differed about the role of language in thinking and the way Sapir-
Whorf planned to conceptualize that relationship. Many researches were conducted based on

4 | Page
their perception of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the hope of finding empirical evidence to
support it. However, research findings are still inconclusive, and Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis is a
subject that scientists continue to investigate (Lucy, 1992, p. 41).

Slobin (1996) studied the research of Wilhelm von Humboldt and Sapir's research on
languages, he concluded that it was clear that there was a relationship between language and
thought. However, he did not clearly state whether he thought the language was determined to
think. Instead, he argued that two languages were not so similar that they could represent the
same reality (Slobin, 1996, p. 14).

Instead, assume that the worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not
just the world itself with different labels associated with it. Moreover, Sapir believed that we
see, hear and experience the world as much as we do because the language habits of our
society create certain options of interpretation (Hoijer, 1954, p. 22).

One of Sapir's students, Benjamin Lee Whorf, developed the idea that there is a
systematic relationship between language and thinking groups. Many scientists attribute the
evolution of the Sapir-Warf theory to Benjamin Lee Hoff. Whorf was not an academic linguist
but a fire insurance inspector. The study of linguistics was his talent (Whorf, 2012, p. 16).

Whorf studied the Hopi language under the supervision of Sapir. He developed a theory
in collaboration with Sapir that many scholars describe as Whorfianism extremists. The term
"radical Whorfianism" states that the structure of human language determines how a person
understands reality and acts in relation to it (McCarvill, 2013, p. 42).

Whorf argued that we categorized nature along the lines laid down by our mother
tongue. For example, Whorf believes that speakers of the nature of Chinese anatomy and the
universe are different from Western speakers. In short, Whorf believes that the culture of the
people determines their language and that their language determines how they classify their
ideas and experiences in the world (McCarvill, 2013, p. 17).

Although Sapir and Whorf describe the relationship between language, thought and
culture, neither has formally written a hypothesis that establishes a relationship that scientists
can undergo a rigorous experimental test. Instead, they proposed broad definitions and

5 | Page
provided examples of their research to clarify their arguments. Indeed, scientists have officially
named the hypothesis of Sapir- Whorf 's hypothesis after the death of Sapir Whorf (Connor &
Connor, 1996, p. 61).

However, the hypothesis remains a formal but controversial statement, primarily

because of the two fundamental principles: linguistic relativism and language determinism.
The principle of linguistic inevitability is annoying to many scientists and a source of criticism
(Jourdan & Tuite, 2006, 42). This principle assumes that we build our ideas based on the
language we speak and the words we use.

In its strongest sense, language determinism means that language defines thought; that
is, humans may be able to think only of the things, events, processes and conditions associated
with their language (Pinker, 2003, p. 81). In this view, language and thought are identical. In
its more moderate sense, language partly influences thinking because the culture of society
influences its language. The writings of both Sapir and Whorf do not necessarily require a
particular position in this case.

Based on personal interpretations by many scholars of Whorf's writings, Whorf is

committed to a strong version of linguistic determinism. That is, this language determines
thinking, and therefore, cannot be thought without language (Whorf, 2012, p. 33). Scientists
have challenged this imperative view on theoretical and empirical grounds. Some scholars
criticize the strong version of language determinism from a causal perspective. That is, how
can one determine whether the language has influenced the thought or thought effect on the
language? In order to make such a decision, one must observe thought and language separately,
a remark that is practically impossible (Bloom & Bloom, 2014, p. 15).

In addition, they argue, if there is no thought without language, how did the language
develop at first? A third critique relates to translation ability. In other words, scientists argue
that although languages differ in the way in which they express certain details, a concept can
always be passed between languages, in contrast to what can be afforded by a strong version of
language determinism (Richards & Schmidt, 2013, p. 19). While it may be true that sense or
significance may be lost in word translation, the fact that this concept can be translated
supports a more moderate view of the relationship between language and thought. Fourth, there

6 | Page
is the issue of settlement, or the number of words you need to express a concept or term in a
single language (Laufe & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 25). Those who support the powerful version of
language determinism argue that the fact that there is a culture of one word only for something
that others may take ten words to express must mean different thinking. However, other
scientists point out that this does not mean that two people see the world differently. Instead
the codability explains the idea of a language that partially affects thought. Finally, there is a
universal theory, attributed to Noam Chomsky, which says that there are deep structures
common to all languages. In this view, all cultures are linked and have similar realities
(Dedrick, 2015, p. 280).

Given previous criticisms, only a few scientists will accept today a strong formulation
of the Sapir-Warf hypothesis. Most researchers share a mild or weak form of language
determinism, which assumes that language influences the idea but does not define it. This view
accepts the principle of linguistic relativism. That is, there is a close relationship between the
structure of the language and the culture that uses that language (Odlin, 1989, p. 89).

From this point of view, language affects our way of thinking and affects us in looking
at the world in a certain way. Linguists and anthropologists have long recognized the
importance of language in culture. Sapir-Whorf's theory shows that different cultures
understand and appreciate the world in different ways and that language is the means to
express this difference.

3. Research methodology
3.1. Theory
Today, while linguists and anthropologists generally agree that language affects
thinking, they do not think it determines thought. However, scientists continue to study how
language affects thinking. Sapir-Warf's theory of linguistic relativity remains an important and
important contribution in the fields of linguistics and anthropology.

Actual research is not of a quantitative nature, but its purpose is to verify the suitability
of the Sapir-Warf hypothesis at this time. The full interpretation of all the details of the theory
will go beyond the scope of this work, so selective analysis is more appropriate. The first is to
summarize the theory of linguistic relativity in Whorf and its theoretical structures.

7 | Page
 As noted earlier, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity suggests that language
determines thought, which means that a different linguistic input reflects a different view of the
world (Sapir, 1985, p. 45). This is a fairly strong statement, which was actually lost in the
1960s with the advent of cognitive science. The "weak" interpretation refers to a mere
influence and not absolute dominance of language to think (Blutner, 2000, P189-216).

A study aimed at providing specific theoretical structures for this hypothesis leads us to
three basic assumptions supporting the theory. In addition to these three assumptions, Dan
Slobin's thinking in speech theory was discussed (Pinker, 2009). These theoretical structures
were briefly explained and linked with the larger picture of the relative linguistic hypothesis.

3.2. Practical
After a selective theoretical analysis of this theory, a more experimental approach was
needed to move from an abstract image to a more realistic picture. An investigation was carried
out on the basis of a previous pilot study prepared by Lira Boroditsky (2009). Boroditsky
conducted an experiment where asked the Spanish and German speakers to describe the bridge.
In German, the concept of "bridge" is a female type, while the word "bridge" in Spanish has a
male gender.

Only by looking at the image of the bridge, German spokesmen described the bridge as
"elegant, crisp, slender", unlike Spanish speakers who use such qualities as "high-rise, strong
and powerful." The selection of traits was based on the sex of the word. A similar investigation
was conducted, in which German and Italian speakers were asked to describe a concept
containing images as a resource only in this paper.

The test word was now Anchor, which carries the female gender in Italian and the
masculine gender in German. The experiment consisted of three Italian and three German
speakers, due to the small size of the research. The expected results were that Italian speakers
would portray female anchor images rather than German speakers.

While this experiment was conducted on the basis of previous work, a new angle was
introduced with the subject of colonialism, especially in a novel by Ngugi Wa-Thiong'o

8 | Page
(1986). This work, although at first sight unrelated to the hypothesis of linguistic relativism,
offers an idea similar to the influential thought on language, as shown in the following quote:

"Thus language and literature took us more and more from ourselves to others, from
our world to other worlds." (Thiong'o, 1986, p. 12) This experiment is necessary to indicate
that this hypothesis is still worthy of study, as it seems - though implicitly - in a novel such as
decolonization of the mind.

4. Results

4.1. Theory

The weak interpretation of this theory led to selective analysis, in order to understand
the basic meaning of this controversial theory. Gumperz and Levinson (1996) have three
hypotheses supporting the hypothesis. These are respectively the theory of experimental
knowledge, structuralism and the idea of unconscious mental life. The following quotations, all
of which can be found in Whorf's articles (1940a-b), represent these three assumptions. These
will be discussed in this section, unlike empirical research, where actual explanations can be
found in the discussion section.

4.1.1. Knowledge theory

The following quote represents the idea of knowledge theory:

"We're like nature along the lines established by the mother tongue. Categories and
species that Nazlha from the world of phenomena that we do not find there because they stare
every observer in the face; on the contrary, is offered the world of the famous flow of
impressions that must be organized by our minds - this Means largely through the linguistic
systems of our minds. (Whorf, 1956, p. 213)

In this quote, Whorf actually states that "all knowledge is acquired primarily through
experience" (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996, p. 5). All of our inputs, guided by the awareness of
concepts by the system of our minds, according to Whorf, largely through the linguistic
systems of our minds.

9 | Page
4.1.2. Structural

Whorf undermines the importance of significance, and states that the concept can be
derived from its meaning rather than its content, for example. In a system of opposition. This
Assyrian bull confirms this.

"Pattern expressions Avatar (ie the linguistic notation of language inscriptions inherent)
accurate, such as mathematics, but it is not the quantity. They do not indicate in the end to the
number and dimensions, as do the math, but to the style and structure." (Whorf, 1956: 226)

4.1.3. Unconscious mental life

"The phenomenon of language is to its own amplifiers largely of the background

personality, as well as beyond the scope of critical consciousness and speaker control" (Whorf,
1956: 211)

Thinking about language processes is beyond our comprehension, which means that
these processes are something we cannot control, and therefore must be more important than
we realize, and thus control our perception of the world, The idea of language as a structure.

Thinking about speech theory (Slobin, 1996) supports this theory. Slobin would like to
translate the concepts of language and thought, into actions related to it; think and speak.

"Includes thinking about talking to choose those characteristics of things and events
that (a) fit some of the concepts of the event and (b) can be easily encoded in the language.
Gumperz and Levinson (1996), suggested that when child acquires the original language, he
learns ways for certain thinking to talk" (, P. 76).

This theory is related to Whorf's idea of different languages, leading to different

perceptions and / or different views of the world. Sloane chooses the example of the sentence
"sick man". Different languages refer to different concepts, for example in Siouan there must
be a difference between the position of rest or movement.

In Kwakutel, one has to mention whether the patient is sick soon or away from the
speaker. All this happens in grammar. Closer to home, in Spanish it is necessary to indicate
whether the disease is temporary or facts. (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996, P. 71) Dan Slobin's

10 | Page
thinking in speech theory confirms the weak version of the Sapir-Warf theory, where the
structure of language has a fundamental influence on the concept of concept.

4.2. Practically

The experience with the Italian and German speakers turned out to be quite different
from the original experience on which Boroditsky was based. Two Italian speakers described
the terms as "heavy, solid", while the third described the announcer in more benign terms such
as "useful and practical".

All three German speakers described the announcer as masculine, such as "solid,
strong" and more neutral descriptions such as "old, rusty".

The following experimental search may be less obvious, but certainly interesting. In
Decolonization of the Mind, Ngugi Wa-Thiong'o takes his place as a defender of his mother
tongue:

"I believe that my writing in Gikuyu language, a Kenyan language, an African

language, is part and parcel of the anti-imperialist struggles of Kenyan and African peoples. In
schools and universities our Kenyan languages –that is the languages the many nationalities
which make up Kenya- were associated with negative qualities of backwardness,
underdevelopment, humiliation and punishment. I do not want to see Kenyan children growing
up in that imperialist-imposed contempt for the tools of communication developed by their
communities and their history. I want them to transcend colonial alienation" (Thiong'o, 1986,
p. 28)

This quotation illustrates the importance of proper language, dignity and its relation to
thought and culture. The subject of colonialism will not be explored further, as it is irrelevant
in this research, but it illustrates the importance of one's personality depending on his or her
own language.

4- Discussions
As we interpret the results of empirical research, it would be acceptable to conclude
that the Sapir-Warf theory is still relevant in the field of sociology, anthropology and other

11 | Page
fields. As the decolonization study of the mind shows, the Kenyan people, who have been
forced to link their own languages of backwardness, automatically find that their culture and
dignity have been taken from it.

The fact that they should now speak the English language of the oppressor causes them
to act like them, and they have no respect for their own customs and cultures. One may say that
they have lost their personal view, by losing the dignity of their language.

The results of the search were based on Boroditsky (2009). Understanding or thinking
does not seem to make any difference in the conceptualization of indigenous speakers. This
may contrast with the strong claim of the Whorf hypothesis, but we aim to check the
appropriateness of the "weak" claim, which refers only to the influential role of language in
relation to thought.

The significance of the anchor may be very clear, unambiguous at all to allow the
language to play a role in perception. Another unanticipated outcome can be explained by the
fact that the experience was very narrow, with only three Italian speakers and three German
speakers, due to lack of resources and limitations.

This paper is so small that this controversial theory actually proves right or wrong, as
many have tried, but it clearly shows the importance of this theory and its relevance to current
ideas in linguistics, anthropology, and even philosophy.

5- Summary and conclusions

The study of linguistic relativity is one aspect of the study of the relationship between
language and thought, which relates to the effects of special linguistic structures on public
perception. Evidence of these effects is abundant now, although questions remain about its
broader significance. One of these questions about the broader importance of language
relativity is its relationship to language learning (Bernstein, 1961, P.311).

In the development of the first language, the effects of relativity arise in middle
childhood and are associated with a set of changes in the form of language and function during
that period that are likely to result in their emergence. In particular, young children seem to
become more aware of the values of the underlying structural meaning of language, develop it

12 | Page
and plot it to organize their speech and ultimately their understanding of reality (Nelson, 1998,
p. 45)

These changes, in turn, seem to enable the child to undertake a range of new functional
activities that depend on the exploitation of these meanings and the common presentation of
the world. These meanings and associated cognitive tendencies may play a role in learning and
understanding a second language. One of the characteristics of these influences is their impact
on public perception and learner's calls for reality to understand and evaluate categories in the
second language (Vygotsky, 1980, p. 33)

These linguistic relativistic effects, in which existential obligations are mediated, must
be understood as distinct from other forms of influence, such as transport and intervention,
which are largely confined to the process of speaking. However, the relative effects are likely
to work in tandem with these other forces. It remains to be seen whether some other effects of
the first language on the second language can be better understood as relative effects or vice
versa. The main task will be to develop measures capable of distinguishing these factors.
(Shotter, 1993, p. 19)

Finally, it seems that learning the second language can also create relative effects,
suggesting both the power of verbal communication of perception and the possibility that the
effects of the first language cannot be changed. Of course, the interesting question remains
about what happens in terms of relativity when two languages are obtained simultaneously in
early childhood, something we know almost nothing about at this stage. (Gumperz and
Levinson, 1991, P. 615.)

The commentary briefly highlights the greater importance of these developments in

middle childhood. Children are primarily drawn into a unified package for their language
groups, their cognitive categories, their existential obligations, and their rhetorical
understandings. (Gogtay et. al, 2004, p. 61)

To the extent that all of these are set in tune with each other, the total becomes a
permanent psychological organization. Learning a second language involves a change in the
whole package. There is no doubt that this change is possible due to the fact that the child
retains some access to the different individual elements before integrating them

13 | Page
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, P. 39). But dismantling everything and building another reality,
another way of being, will always be a difficult task. In the end, it may not be possible to be
fully threaded and thus feel that our language classes are normal, but inevitable. (Glasersfeld,
1995, p. 32)

In this sense, the categories of other languages acquired later in life can appear poor,
rich, illogical or poetic, but they do not seem natural. The root source of this sense of nature
lies in the influence of linguistic relativity when the first language is coherent with the thought
and reality of the young child. Understanding this process will be central to our understanding
of language learning in all its aspects.

6. References
1. Alessandro Duranti. (1977). Linguistic Anthropology. USA: Cambridge
University Press
2. Barton, D. (2017). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written
language. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Bernstein, B. (1961). Social class and linguistic development: A theory of
social learning. Education, economy and society, 288-314.
4. Bloom, A. H., & Bloom, A. H. (2014). The linguistic shaping of thought: A
study in the impact of language on thinking in China and the West.
Psychology Press.
5. Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language
interpretation. Journal of semantics, 17(3), 189-216.
6. Boas, Franz (1911), Handbook of American Indian languages (Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office
(Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology).
7. Brouček, L. (2013). The Paratactic Aggregate-Feyerabend's Pluralistic
Philosophy.
8. Connor, U., & Connor, U. M. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural
aspects of second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

14 | Page
 9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. HarperPerennial, New York, 39.
10. Dedrick, D. (2015). Colour language, thought, and culture. The Routledge
handbook of language and culture, 270-93.
11. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals:
Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and
brain sciences, 32(5), 429-448.
12. Gogtay, N., Giedd, J. N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K. M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis,
A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical
development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 101(21), 8174-8179.
13. Gumperz J. J. & Levinson S.C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
14. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1991). Rethinking linguistic relativity.
Current Anthropology, 32(5), 613-623.
15. Hoijer, H. (1954). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Language in culture, 92-105.
16. Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural
politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-
Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 12(1), 13-50.
17. Jourdan, C., & Tuite, K. (Eds.). (2006). Language, culture, and society: Key
topics in linguistic anthropology (Vol. 23). Cambridge University Press.
18. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second
language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied
linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
19. Lee P. (1996). The Whorf Theory Complex. A Critical Reconstruction.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

20. Lucy, A. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Illinois: University of Chicago Press

21. Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the
linguistic relativity hypothesis (Vol. 12). Cambridge University Press.

15 | Page
 22. McCarvill, M. F. E. (2013). Linguistic relativity, interpretive empathy, and
the" connection of ideas": eighteenth-century theories of linguacultural
development (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
23. Nelson, K. (1998). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the
mediated mind. Cambridge University Press.
24. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language
learning. Cambridge University Press.
25. Pinker, S. (2003). The language instinct: How the mind creates language.
Penguin UK.
26. Pinker, S. (2009). Language learnability and language development, with new
commentary by the author (Vol. 7). Harvard University Press.
27. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge.
28. Rumbaugh, J., Booch, G., & Jacobson, I. (2017). The unified modeling
language reference manual. Addison Wesley.
29. Sapir, E. (1985). Culture, language and personality: Selected essays (Vol.
342). Univ of California Press.
30. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language
(Vol. 11). Sage.

31. Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In
J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 70-96
32. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”.
33. Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in

African Literature Heinemann Publishing

34. Tomasello, M. (2017). The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and

Functional Approaches To Language Structure, Volume I. Routledge.
35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard university press.

16 | Page
 36. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writing: of
Benjamín Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
37. Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. Mit Press.

17 | Page