Language (Ch 6 from Berry et al., Cross-cultural Psychology, 2002) Ype H. Poortinga (Prof Em) Tilburg University, Netherlands & University of Leuven, Belgium

Outline Language development Linguistic relativity Coding and categorization of color Spatial orientation Universals in language [Bilingualism]

Language development Phonemes: languages differ in the set of phonemes, e.g., “l” and “r” are not distinguished in Japanese, and there is an aspirated "b" in Arabic Note: Japanese cannot discriminate between "lead" and "read" even when listening to recordings of their own pronunciations Babies may distinguish phonemic categories not found in the adult language of their environment Description of relations between objects: Prepositions may differ; in Finnish the handle is in the pan and the band aid is in the leg In Korean there is a distinction between the verbs “kkita” referring to tight fit (putting the cap on a pen) and “nehta” for loosely fitting relations (putting books in a bag) Both Korean and English babies of five months showed evidence of making this distinction, but not English language adults, suggesting a loss of a conceptual distinction

Linguistic relativity The "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" or Whorfian hypothesis suggests strong relationships between characteristics of language and thinking. “[T]he background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself a shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock- of-trade" Whorf illustrated this with Hopi language (e.g., no time in the verb, but a distinction between the manifested and the non-manifest) Another example is the conditional mode in the verb indicating that a statement is counterfactual (e.g., “If I knew French, I could read the work of Voltaire"); Chinese does not have such a mode of expression According to Bloom this negatively affects the ability of speakers of Chinese to think counterfactually, but the book notes other evidence from South Africa

Linguistic relativity: Coding and categorization of colors Berlin and Kay (1969) asked bilingual respondents resident in the area of San Francisco to generate color terms in their mother tongue and to identify these on the Munsell atlas of colors A basic color term had four main characteristics: (1) it is monoleximic, i.e., the meaning of the term cannot be derived from the meaning of its parts (like in lemon-colored) (2) the color it signifies is not included in another color term (e.g., scarlet is a kind of red); (3) its usage must not be restricted to certain classes of objects; (4) it must be psychologically salient (e.g., occasions of usage) Finding 1: focality, i.e., across languages basic colors are clustered Finding 2: Many cultures do not have names for all the eleven basic colors in English. The focal colors become encoded in the history of a language in a (largely) fixed order

Heider/Rosch established that focal colors had a higher codability (more rapid naming and shorter names than non-focal colors) in 23 languages The Dani, with only two basic color terms, recognized (western) focal better than non-focal colors after a 30’’ interval (as did American students). Also, they learned names for focal colors more rapid than for non-focal colors Bornstein et al. used stimulus habituation with 4-month old babies. With some changes the new stimulus remained within the same color category as the original (e.g., both were "red" for an adult observer), while with other changes of the same shift in wave length the new stimulus would fall in another category (e.g., a shift from red to yellow) Infants reacted stronger to the latter type of change. Hence, category boundaries for babies appeared to be much the same as for adults

Saunders and Van Brakel argue that neurophysiological processes linking perception to color naming remain largely unknown, making any interpretation which assumes universal mechanisms a matter of speculation. However, the text argues that they fail to come up with alternative evidence explaining the occurrence of color categories in human societies everywhere The conclusion by Bornstein (1997, p. 181) "to see colors is to categorize the spectrum into hues" seems to be unaffected Newer findings with the Berinmo and Himba (cf lab on perception) indicate that color distinctions made in the respondents' own language are easier to learn and remember than distinctions according to the categories proposed by Berlin and Kay Hence, linguistic experience does play a role in perception, but it is probably best qualified as having a limited impact

Spatial orientation Research on spatial orientation has made a major contribution to the revival of linguistic relativity. There are languages with “ego-centric” orientation, and those with absolute or geocentric spatial coordinates systems (e.g., referenced on a mountain) Levinson (1998, p. 14) infers (without appreciable evidence!): "A relative system fits with a culture that promotes individual perspective, that is preoccupied with viewpoint-dependent order -- as enshrined for example in domestic architecture or writing systems, symbolisms of left and right, or ceremonial arrangements of chattels. An absolute system permits abstraction away from individual perspective, allowing individuals to become mere points in a landscape... No doubt these associations are too simplistic to fully capture the ranges of use of either kind of system, but up to a point they seem to match the characteristics of the societies that utilize them" Mishra, Dasen and others have found on Bali and in India that ego- centric encoding occurs even in groups primarily using absolute coordinates. Apparently, there is flexibility in use

Universals in language The text refers to a number of studies indicating: - similarities in grammar (e.g., word order) and prosodics (e.g., intonation) Note, this is not to deny subtle, but important differences - limited consequences of differences (e.g. tonality) - similarities in semantics (e.g., affective polarity; affectively positive words are more often “un”marked in the languages Osgood studied, and connected by “and” rather than “but”) - effects of segmentation (based on syllable, stress, or “mora”) for understanding. Conclusion: The various languages in the world hardly seem to predestine to different kinds of thinking