The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity
Abstract
The voluminous literature on linguistic relativity has concerned itself primarily with the search for influences of particular languages on nonlinguistic cognition in situations in which language is not being used, overtly or covertly. This represents a long tradition in which anthropologists, psychologists, and linguists have sought to relate grammatical and semantic systems of a language to the worldview or epistemology or culture of the community of speakers of the language. For example, Lucy has proposed a set of requirements for studies of linguistic relativity. He stipulates that such research “should assess the cognitive performance of individual speakers aside from explicitly verbal contexts and try to establish that any cognitive patterns that are detected also characterize everyday behavior outside of the assessment situation ” (Lucy, 1996, p. 48, emphasis added). In this view, “cognition ” is seen as a collection of concepts and procedures that come into play regardless of whether an individual is engaged in verbal behavior—speaking, listening, or verbal thinking. Such research is directed towards what Lucy calls “an independent cognitive interpretation of reality ” (Lucy, 2000, p. xii). A rather different approach to “cognition ” is provided by investigators who concern themselves with language use and cultural practice. For example, Gumperz and Levinson, introducing Rethinking linguistic relativity (1996, p. 8), underline the importance of “theories of use in context, ” including formal semantic theories (e.g., Discourse Representation Theory, Situation Semantics) and pragmatic theories (Relevance Theory, Gricean theories), along with research in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. In the present paper, I begin with the fact that human beings spend a large portion of their time in linguistic behavior of one sort or another—that is, we are creatures that are almost constantly involved in preparing, producing, and interpreting verbal messages. Accordingly, research on linguistic relativity is incomplete without attention to the cognitive processes that are brought to bear, online, in the course of using language.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
Cited by
The cognitive functions of language
Carruthers, P. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000122 · Cited by 728
Robinson, P. (2015) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.8.04rob · Cited by 192
Key principles underlying research and practice in AAC
Blackstone, S. W., Williams, M. B., & Wilkins, D. P. (2007) · Augmentative and Alternative Communication · doi:10.1080/07434610701553684 · Cited by 143
Concepts in the Brain: The View From Cross-linguistic Diversity
Kemmerer, D. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190682620.001.0001 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Slobin, D. I.
- Venue
- Language in Mind
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2003-03-14
- Pages
- 157-192
- OpenAlex
- W2097047235
- Cited by
- 758
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.75
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.