Does Language Shape Thought?

Cognitive Psychology 43, 1–22 (2001) doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time
Lera Boroditsky
Stanford University Does the language you speak affect how you think about the world? This question is taken up in three experiments. English and Mandarin talk about time differently— English predominantly talks about time as if it were horizontal, while Mandarin also commonly describes time as vertical. This difference between the two languages is reflected in the way their speakers think about time. In one study, Mandarin speakers tended to think about time vertically even when they were thinking for English (Mandarin speakers were faster to confirm that March comes earlier than April if they had just seen a vertical array of objects than if they had just seen a horizontal array, and the reverse was true for English speakers). Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin–English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old they were when they first began to learn English. In another experiment native English speakers were taught to talk about time using vertical spatial terms in a way similar to Mandarin. On a subsequent test, this group of English speakers showed the same bias to think about time vertically as was observed with Mandarin speakers. It is concluded that (1) language is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains and (2) one’s native language plays an important role in shaping habitual thought (e.g., how one tends to think about time) but does not entirely determine one’s thinking in the strong Whorfian sense. © 2001 Academic Press Key Words: Whorf; time; language; metaphor; Mandarin.

Does the language you speak shape the way you understand the world? Linguists, philosophers, anthropologists, and psychologists have long been interested in this question. This interest has been fueled in large part

References: Au, T., Dapretto, M., & Song Y. (1994). Input vs constraints: Early word acquisition in Korean and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 567–582. Boroditsky, L. (1998). Evidence for metaphoric representation: Understanding time. In K. Holyoak, D. Gentner, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences. Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian Univ. Press. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. Boroditsky, L. (in preparation). Which way to the present? Cross-linguistic differences in thinking about time. Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 145–176). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. 4 See Gopnik and Choi (1995), Choi and Gopnik (1995), and Tardif (1996) for counterevidence to this claim, and Gentner and Boroditsky (2001) for discussion. LANGUAGE SHAPES THOUGHT 21 Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Special Issue: Lexical and conceptual semantics. Cognition, 41(1–3), 83–121. Choi, S., & Gopnik, A. (1995). Early acquisition of verbs in Korean: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 22(3), 497–529. Chun, L. (1997a). A cognitive approach to UP metaphors in English and Chinese: What do they reveal about the English mind and the Chinese mind? In Research degree progress report for Hong Kong Polytechnic University (pp. 125–140). Chun, L. (1997b). Conceptualizing the world through spatial metaphors: An analysis of UP/ DOWN vs. SHANG/XIA metaphors. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, H. (1973). Space, time semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. Gelman, S., & Tardif, T. (1998). Acquisition of nouns and verbs in Mandarin and English. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 27– 36). Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Language, thought, and culture (Vol. 2, pp. 301–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Gentner, D. & Boronat, C. (1992, May). Metaphor as mapping. Paper presented at the Workshop on Metaphor, Tel Aviv, Israel. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., & Wolff, P. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Theory and phenomena. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gentner, D., & Imai, M. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62(2), 169–200. Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition. Gopnik, A., & Choi, S. (1995). Names, relational words, and cognitive development in English and Korean Speakers: Nouns are not always learned before verbs. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 63–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Heider, E. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 10–20. Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389. Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86, 65–79. Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207–246. 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. 22 LERA BORODITSKY Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Lucy, J., & Shweder, R. (1979). Whorf and his critics: Linguistic and nonlinguistic influences on color memory. American Anthropologist, 81, 581–618. Macnamara, J. (1972). Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. Psychological Review, 79, 1–13. Markman, E., & Hutchinson, J. (1984). Children’s sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1–27. Nelson, K. (1973). Some evidence for the cognitive primacy of categorization and its functional basis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 19, 21–39. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In R. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Scott, A. (1989). The vertical dimension and time in Mandarin. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 9, 295–314. Sera, M., Berge, C., & del Castillo, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9(3), 261–292. Slobin, D. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 435–445. Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘‘thought and language’’ to ‘‘thinking for speaking.’’ In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press. Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs, but why? Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 492–504. Traugott, E. (1978). On the expression of spatiotemporal relations in language. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Word structure (Vol. 3, pp. 369–400). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. Waxman, S., & Kosowski, T. (1990). Nouns mark category relations: Toddlers’ and Preschoolers’ word-learning biases. Child Development, 61, 1461–1473. Whorf, B. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Accepted June 10, 1999, published online May 3, 2001)