1. Nicholas Hanna

2. What do we do using our language?  Generate  Manipulate  Record

3. Research Questions  Does the language we speak limit our thoughts?  Does the language we speak influence our thoughts?

4. Color  Setswana: 1 word for both blue and green Group these items together 1  English and Russian Do not group these items together

5. Grammatical Features  Chinese and Navajo 1 Categorize items differently Consistent with features of their grammars

6. Quantity  Pirahã, of Brazil { “One”, “Two”, “Many” } “unable to reliably tell the difference between four objects placed in a row and five in the same configuration” 2

7.  Language trains us to segregate Practice makes perfect  Different languages demand we segregate different features

8. Intuition  We want a more expressive language  More categories

9. Evidentials Affixes to words Specify the source of knowledge (witnessed, inferred, …) Required in some languages

10. Evidentials  In languages with evidentials, children: Evaluate degree of certainty from a younger age 7 Differentiate between credible and non- credible sources from a younger age 7 Are more reliable in court testimony 7

11. What this means…  In English the idea behind the evidential can be represented by words or phrases can be left out  In languages with evidentials Evidentials are not optional  Therefore English is more expressive The “less expressive” language is linked with the positive effects

12. Programming Languages  How we structure a problem? Recursive or Iterative? Parallel or Sequential?

13. Conclusion  Does the language we speak limit our thoughts? Maybe.  Does the language we speak influence our thoughts? Yes. Heavily.

14. Applications  Cross-cultural communication Are speakers of different languages capable of the same thoughts?  Multilingualism Benefits to learning multiple languages.  Constructed language Can we design a more capable language to enhance knowledge? Can we accidentally hinder a language to the point of hurting knowledge?

15. References 1. Arrieta Espinoza, Anita. “Language Culture and Thought: Toward a Reacquaintance with the Whorfian Hypothesis.” Kanina. 27.2: 173-83. 2. Biever, Celeste. “Language May Shape Human Thought.” New Scientist. 3. Boroditsky, Lera. “Does Language Shape Thought? Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time.” Cognitive Psychology. 43.1 (2001): 1-22. 4. Chafe, Wallace. “Language and Memory.” Language. 49.2 (1973): 261-81. 5. Chen, Jenn-Yeu. “Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky.” Cognition. 104.2 (2007): 427-36. 6. Gobel, Eric. "Neural correlates of skill acquisition: Decreased cortical activity during a serial interception sequence learning task." NeuroImage. 58.4 (15 October 2011): 1150-7. 7. Matsui, Tomoko. “Knowing how we know: Evidentiality and cognitive development.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2009.125: 1-11. 8. Skerrett, Delaney Michael. “Can the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis save the planet? Lessons from cross-cultural psychology for critical language policy.” Current Issues in Language Planning. 11.4: 331-40. 9. Tohidian, Iman. “Examining Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis as One of the Main Views on the Relationship Between Language and Thought.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 38.1: 65-74.