Linguistic Relativity Revisited: The Interaction between L1 and L2 in Thinking, Learning, and Production

Hye K. Pae

.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2012.31008                

Abstract

The linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH; a.k.a., Whorfian hypothesis) is reconsidered with respect to second language (L2) acquisition. With ebbs and flows over time, the notion of LRH went through dis- missal and resurgence in linguistics, psychology, and anthropology. Empirical evidence gleaned from the pseudo-linguistic domains, such as color categorization, time perception, spatial cognition, and number recognition, supports the weak form of LRH. This article briefly reviews the conflicting views, discusses empirical evidence, and expands the premise of LRH to L2 learning. Of interest is the interface of syntax and semantics in English language learners’ (ELLs) ergative verb usage in which ELLs tend to overpassivize English ergative verbs (e.g., appear, happen, break). The source of prevalent overpassivization errors is discussed using the LRH framework.

Keywords

Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis; Language and Cognition; Second Language Acquisition

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60-80. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.004
[2]	Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13, 1-9. doi:10.1191/026765897670080531
[3]	Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
[4]	Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language learning, 58, 63-79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00462.x
[5]	Chaika, E. (1989). Language the social mirror. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
[6]	Clark, E. V. (2003). Languages and representations. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 17-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[7]	Cowan, R. (2008). The Teacher’s Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[8]	Delancey, S. (1990). Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan, Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 289-321. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.289
[9]	Drivonikou, G. V., Kay, P., Regier, T., Ivry, R. B., Gilbert, A. L., Franklin, A., & Davies, I. R. L. (2007). Further evidence that Whorfian effects are stronger in the right visual field than the left. PNAS, 104, 1097-1102. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610132104
[10]	Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language learning, 51, 281-318. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00156
[11]	Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.
[12]	Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Whither Whorf. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 3-14). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[13]	Gilbert, A. L., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. B. (2006). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103, 489- 494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509868103
[14]	Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[15]	Hinkel, E. (2002). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (Eds.). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 233-259). New York; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
[16]	Hoffman, E. (1989). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York: Dutton.
[17]	Hoffman, C., Lau, I., & Johnson, D. R. (1986). The linguistic relativity of person cognition. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1097-1105. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1097
[18]	Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377-389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.377
[19]	January, D., & Kako, E. (2006). Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 417-426. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.008
[20]	Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Sea Service Leadership Association, 22, 85-111.
[21]	Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86, 65-79. doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050
[22]	Kemmelmeier, M., Cheng, B. (2004). Language and self-construal priming: A replication and extension in a Hong Kong sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 705-712. doi:10.1177/0022022104270112
[23]	Kondo, T. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 129-161. doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.2.129
[24]	Kousta, S-T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Investigating linguistic relativity through bilingualism: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34, 843-858. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.843
[25]	Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications, New York: Longman.
[26]	Lee, P. (1997). Language in thinking and learning: Pedagogy and the New Whorfian framework. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 430- 471.
[27]	Levinson, S. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom & M. Peterson (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[28]	Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Spatial language and spatial cognition. Cognition, 83, 265-294. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00009-4
[29]	Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[30]	Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purpose, 10, 15-33. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(91)90013-M
[31]	McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
[32]	Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routeledge.
[33]	Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279-304. doi:10.1017/S0272263101002078
[34]	Park, K-S., & Lakshmanan, U. (2007). The unaccusative-unergative distinction in resultatives: Evidence from Korean L2 learners of English. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA). 328-338. www.lingref.com, document #1573.
[35]	Pae, H. K., Schanding, B., & Kwon, Y.-J. (March, 2011). Overpassivization of ergatives by adult English language learners. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, Illinois.
[36]	Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4, 157- 189.
[37]	Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, US: William Mor- row and Company.
[38]	Regier, T., & Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 439-446. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.001
[39]	Roberson, D., Hanley, J. R., & Pak, H. (2009). Thresholds for color discrimination in English and Korean speakers. Cognition, 112, 482-487. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.008
[40]	Shan, C.-K., & Yuan, B. (2008). “What is happened” in L2 English does not happen in L2 Chinese, ERUOSLA Yearbook, 8, 164-190. doi:10.1075/eurosla.8.10sha
[41]	Sorace, A., & Shomura, Y. (2001). Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 247-278. doi:10.1017/S0272263101002066
[42]	Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859-890. doi:10.2307/417202
[43]	Tohidian, I. (2009). Examining linguistic relativity hypothesis as one of the main views on the relationship between language and thought. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 65-74. doi:10.1007/s10936-008-9083-1
[44]	Yip, V. (1990). Interlanguage ergative constructions and learnability. CUHK Papers in Linguistics (pp.45-68). Hong Kong: Chinese University.
[45]	Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[46]	Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. M. Gass, & Schacter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.