Thinking in Tongues Slides Thinking in Tongues
Foundations of Linguistic Relativity
The Color Challenge
Can you describe a specific color that your language doesn't have a name for?
Azure?
Indigo?
Cobalt?
Try to describe the distinction between these shades without using specific nouns or adjectives from English.
The Core Inquiry
"To what extent does the language we speak dictate the structure of our thoughts and our perception of reality?"
1
Language
2
Cognition
3
Reality
The Historical Roots
Edward Sapir (1929)
"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone... but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society."
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1940)
"The background linguistic system... of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas."
Key Insight: Linguistic systems are not just tools; they are frameworks.
The Dual Hypothesis
Linguistic Determinism
"The Strong Version"
Language determines thought. If your language lacks a word for a concept, you literally cannot think it.
"Prisoners of our own vocabulary."
Linguistic Relativity
"The Weak Version"
Language influences thought. Speaking a certain language makes it easier or more likely to think in certain ways.
"Language as a lens or a habit."
The Universalist Perspective
Critics like Steven Pinker argue that thought is independent of language.
Mentalese: We think in an internal language of thought, not English or Russian.Common biological hardware limits variation.
"Language is the skin of a living thought... but the thought itself is a separate animal."
How do we test this?
01
Color
Does naming a color change how fast we can distinguish it from others?
02
Space
Does using "left/right" vs "north/south" change our memory of objects?
03
Gender
Does a noun's grammatical gender affect the qualities we associate with it?
Next Step: Primary Source Deep-Dive
Thought Theory Worksheet Cognitive Cartography
Theoretical Foundations Worksheet
Name:
Date:
Critical Source Analysis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has evolved significantly since its inception. Below are three foundational perspectives on the relationship between language and thought. Read each carefully and analyze the subtle distinctions in their claims.
Source A
Edward Sapir (1929)
Determinism?
"The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation."
Source B
Benjamin Whorf (1940)
Relativity?
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages... the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds."
Source C
Steven Pinker (1994)
Universalism?
"Language is not a cultural artifact... It is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought... 'mentalese'."
1. Synthesis: Contrast Source A and Source B. While both are often grouped together, Sapir (A) focuses more on "habits" while Whorf (B) focuses on "dissection" and "organization." How do these metaphors imply different degrees of cognitive control?
2. The Universalist Critique: Explain how Pinker’s concept of "mentalese" (Source C) directly contradicts the fundamental premise shared by Sapir and Whorf.
3. Application: Consider the "Strong Version" (Linguistic Determinism) vs the "Weak Version" (Linguistic Relativity). Which source above most closely aligns with the Strong Version? Justify your choice with a specific phrase from the text.
Conceptual Mapping
In the space below, draw a simple flowchart or diagram that illustrates the "Chain of Influence" proposed by Whorf. Start with "Linguistic System" and end with "Organized Reality."
4. Personal Reflection: Think back to the color-naming task from our opening discussion. Does your experience support Sapir’s idea of "habits of interpretation" or Pinker’s idea of a "biological biological makeup"? Explain.
Cognitive Cartography Sequence Lesson 1: Foundations PSY-LING 302
Foundations Facilitation Guide Teacher Facilitation Guide
Thinking in Tongues Foundations
PSY-LING 302
Lesson 1 of 5
Lesson Summary
This lesson introduces the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by tracing its intellectual history and contrasting it with modern universalist perspectives. The focus is on moving students beyond a simplistic "language = thought" understanding toward a nuanced distinction between determinism and relativity.
Key Objectives
Define Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Contrast Determinism vs Relativity
Explain Mentalese (Universalism)
15 min
The Hook: Color Naming
Facilitate the color challenge from the slides. Push students to avoid "it's like X" comparisons.
Discussion Prompt: "When you see two shades of blue that your language calls by the same name (e.g., just 'blue'), do you perceive them as more similar than two shades with different names (e.g., 'blue' vs 'green')?"
20 min
Theoretical Architecture
Review the slides on Sapir, Whorf, and Pinker. Clarify the "Strong" vs "Weak" versions.
Determinism: Language is a cage (untestable/unlikely).
Relativity: Language is a lens (empirically supported).
45 min
Primary Source Deep-Dive
Students work in small groups on the Thought Theory Worksheet .
Look for: Students confusing 'Mentalese' with internal monologue. Clarify that Mentalese is pre-linguistic propositional thought.
Discussion Wrap-up: Ask a student to share their "Chain of Influence" diagram from the worksheet.
Common Misconceptions
Students often think if a language has no word for "love," the speakers can't feel love. Emphasize that Whorfian effects are usually about **attention and memory speed**, not total cognitive inability.
Differentiation
For advanced students, introduce the "Eskimo Words for Snow" myth (Pullum, 1989) as a warning against over-interpreting linguistic relativity.
Color Perception Slides The Color of Thought
The Empirical Case for Linguistic Relativity
Odd-One-Out
Which square is the outlier?
Imagine doing this for 100 trials. Does your language make it faster?
Winawer et al. (2007)
The Linguistic Fact:
English has one basic color term: BLUE.
Russian has two mandatory basic terms:
Goluboy Light Blue
Siniy Dark Blue
The Hypothesis
"Russian speakers should be faster to discriminate colors that fall into different linguistic categories (cross-category) than colors that fall into the same category (within-category)."
Categorical Perception (CP)
CP occurs when items that cross a category boundary are perceived as more distinct than items that do not, even when the physical distance is the same.
Is the boundary created by the visual system or by the language system?
Goluboy Russian Boundary Siniy
Physical difference between shades is kept constant.
The Winawer Findings
1. Cross-Category Advantage
Russian speakers were significantly faster when the two colors were from different categories (e.g., one goluboy, one siniy).
2. English Results
English speakers showed no such advantage. They were equally fast (or slow) for all pairs.
Crucial Twist:
The advantage disappeared when participants performed a verbal interference task (reciting numbers).
Why does this matter? It suggests the language system is actively helping the visual system in real-time.
Is Blue Just Blue?
"Language does not change the physical input to our eyes, but it acts as a 'filter' that speeds up the processing of specific differences."
Analyze Data
Evaluate Evidence
Lab Activity: The Russian Blues Dataset
Russian Blues Data Lab Russian Blues: Data Lab
Empirical Analysis Workshop
Name:
Date:
Experimental Overview
In Winawer et al. (2007), researchers tested whether the obligatory color categories in Russian (goluboy vs. siniy) gave speakers a perceptual advantage over English speakers, who use a single term (blue) for the same range.
The Task
Participants were shown three colored squares (one on top, two on bottom) and asked which of the bottom two matched the top square. The speed of their response (Reaction Time) was measured in milliseconds (ms).
Dataset: Mean Reaction Times
Condition English Speakers (ms) Russian Speakers (ms) Within-Category Pair 485 482 Cross-Category Pair 488 425
Note: Data points are simplified representations based on Winawer et al. (2007) results.
1. Data Interpretation: Describe the "Cross-Category Advantage" seen in the Russian speakers. How do their results differ from the English speakers?
2. Graphic Representation: In the grid below, sketch a simple bar chart comparing the Russian speakers' reaction times for both conditions. Label your axes correctly.
Reaction Time (ms)
Condition
Critical Variable: Verbal Interference
The study included a second experiment where participants performed the same task while simultaneously reciting a string of numbers (verbal interference). In this condition, the Russian speakers' cross-category advantage disappeared .
3. Mechanism Analysis: Why would reciting numbers interfere with a color-matching task? What does this suggest about the role of language in online perception?
4. Designing a Counter-Argument: A skeptic argues that Russians are simply "better at color tasks" generally. How does the English speaker data in the first table disprove this?
Final Synthesis Question
"If we change our language, do we change our vision?" Based on this lab, formulate a 2-3 sentence argument that uses the concept of Linguistic Relativity (the weak version) to answer this.
Cognitive Cartography Sequence Lesson 2: Color Perception Lab PSY-LING 302
Color Perception Answer Key Answer Key
Russian Blues: Data Lab
Teacher Resource
1. Data Interpretation
Russian speakers are significantly faster (~60ms) when the colors cross a linguistic boundary (goluboy vs siniy). English speakers show no difference between conditions because both shades fall into the same "blue" category for them. This suggests Russian speakers have categorical perception driven by their language.
2. Graphic Representation
The chart should show two bars for Russian speakers. The "Within-Category" bar should be noticeably taller (~482ms) than the "Cross-Category" bar (~425ms).
3. Mechanism Analysis
Verbal interference (reciting numbers) occupies the language centers of the brain. Since the advantage disappears when the language center is busy, it implies that the color-discrimination advantage is not a permanent change to the eyes/vision, but a real-time "boost" provided by linguistic labeling.
4. Designing a Counter-Argument
The English speakers serve as a control. If Russians were simply better at color tasks across the board, their "Within-Category" speed (482ms) would also be significantly faster than the English "Within-Category" speed (485ms), but they are nearly identical. The advantage only appears when the category boundary is crossed.
Exemplar Synthesis Argument
"While language does not alter our basic biological vision, it acts as an online cognitive tool that enhances our ability to distinguish between specific perceptual categories. The Russian Blues study supports the 'weak' version of linguistic relativity by demonstrating that mandatory language labels can accelerate specific types of non-linguistic discrimination."
Cognitive Cartography Sequence • PSY-LING 302 • Answer Key Confidential
Spatial Frames Slides The Mental Compass
Spatial Frames of Reference & Cognition
Where is Southeast?
Without looking at a compass or phone, point exactly Southeast.
For a speaker of Guugu Yimithirr, this is a basic cognitive skill. For most English speakers, it requires effort and external tools. Why?
Frames of Reference
Egocentric (Relative)
"Left, Right, Front, Back"
The coordinate system is attached to the observer. If you turn around, the "fork" that was on your left is now on your right .
Geocentric (Absolute)
"North, South, East, West"
The coordinate system is attached to the fixed world. If you turn around, the fork is still North of you.
The Guugu Yimithirr Case
"Look out for the snake just North of your foot!"
In this Australian Aboriginal language, there are no words for "left" or "right" in a spatial sense.
Every spatial description—even for small-scale interactions—requires knowing one's cardinal orientation at all times.
Obligatory Precision
The Rotation Task (Levinson, 1997)
1. Participant sees three objects in a line on Table 1.
2. Participant is rotated 180° to Table 2.
3. "Make it the same as it was before."
How does "same" differ between speakers?
English Strategy
Rotate the array (maintain relative positions). Left stays left.
Guugu Yimithirr Strategy
Preserve the cardinal line (absolute positions). North stays North.
Conclusion: Spatial Cognition
"Language forces us to attend to specific aspects of the world (like cardinal direction) until they become second nature."
Workshop Task
Non-Linguistic Memory & Spatial Coding
Orientation Task Activity Sheet Mental Maps: Spatial Workshop
Egocentric vs. Geocentric Cognition
Name:
Relative (Egocentric)
Coordinates based on the speaker's body (e.g., "The pen is to the left of the phone").
Absolute (Geocentric)
Coordinates based on cardinal directions (e.g., "The pen is to the North of the phone").
Simulation: The Rotation Task
Procedure (Work with a Partner):
Setup: On "Table A," place three distinct objects (A, B, C) in a line from your left to your right.Observe: Memorize the order and positions of the objects.Rotate: Stand up, turn 180° around, and face "Table B" (the opposite direction).Reconstruct: On Table B, place the objects to be "the same" as they were on Table A.
1. Data Recording
Table A Orientation (Facing North?)
Obj 1 Obj 2 Obj 3
Table B Orientation (Facing South?)
? ? ?
2. Self-Analysis: Look at your reconstruction on Table B. Did you preserve the Relative position (Left/Right) or the Absolute position (Compass Orientation)? Explain your thought process.
3. Comparative Linguistics: Why do Guugu Yimithirr speakers consistently choose the Absolute strategy, even when there are no "landmarks" available?
Theoretical Implications
4. Memory Coding: Levinson (1997) argued that this task is "non-linguistic" (you aren't speaking while doing it). If language is truly just a "tool for communication" (Universalist view), why would it affect your memory of an object array after a rotation?
Hypothesis Generation
"Does the lack of absolute spatial terms in English make us 'geographically blind' compared to absolute-language speakers?"
Formulate a hypothesis based on today's workshop:
Bonus: Cultural Mapping
In Western urban environments, we often use a hybrid system (e.g., "The coffee shop is on the left of the bank" vs "Go North on 5th Ave"). Which system do you think is more cognitively demanding for a human brain? Why?
Cognitive Cartography Sequence Lesson 3: Spatial Frames PSY-LING 302
Spatial Cognition Facilitation Guide Facilitator's Protocol
Spatial Cognition Lab
PSY-LING 302
Lesson 3 of 5
Lab Requirements
3 unique objects per pair (e.g., eraser, pen, key)
Two tables (or one long table)
Compass apps (optional, for verification)
Important: The room should not have overwhelming visual landmarks (like a giant mural on one wall) if you want to see pure linguistic effects.
1. The Blind Pointing Hook (10 min)
Ask students to point to "Southeast." Note the chaos. Then ask them to point to their "Right." Note the uniformity.
Key Point: Most English speakers treat cardinal directions as "data to be looked up" whereas absolute-language speakers treat it as "ambient knowledge."
2. Running the Rotation Task (30 min)
Crucial: The instruction must be ambiguous . Do not say "make it left-to-right" or "make it north-to-south." Just say "Make it the same."
Relative Response:
"The eraser was on my left, so it stays on my left." (English Typical)
Absolute Response:
"The eraser was North, so it stays North (which is now my right)." (Whorfian Effect)
3. Discussion Prompts (20 min)
"If we blindfolded a Guugu Yimithirr speaker and spun them around, they could still likely tell you where North is. How is their proprioception trained by their grammar?"
"Why would an Absolute system be beneficial in an open-landscape (like a desert or sea) versus a dense urban one?"
Troubleshooting the Task
If a student uses the Absolute strategy in class, ask if they have experience in sailing, aviation, or professional orienteering. These "professional dialects" often induce absolute frames even in English speakers, highlighting that habit is the driver, whether linguistic or professional.
Grammatical Gender Slides ♂♀♂♀♂
Gendered Objects
Morphology & The Mental Representation of Things
Beautiful or Strong?
In German, Bridge is feminine (die Brücke).
In Spanish, Bridge is masculine (el puente).
Question:
"If I ask you to describe a bridge, will the grammatical gender of the word in your native language leak into your description?"
The Case of the Key
German Speakers
Key = Masculine (der Schlüssel)
Hard Heavy Jagged Metal Serrated
Spanish Speakers
Key = Feminine (la llave)
Golden Little Lovely Shiny Tiny
Both groups were tested in English, yet the bias remained.
Obligatory Distinctions
Linguistic relativity isn't just about vocabulary; it's about obligatory grammatical categories.
"Grammar is a way of forcing us to pay attention to specific features of reality every single time we speak."
Number
English forces us to distinguish between one vs. many.
Tense
English forces us to place every action in time (Past/Present/Future).
Gender
Many languages force us to gender every single object.
Cognitive Association
Does gendering a Bridge as feminine actually make a person think it has "feminine properties," or is it just a superficial linguistic habit?
Memory
Easier to remember names that match the grammatical gender.
Art/Poetry
Personified objects in art often match their linguistic gender.
Social Bias
Can language structure reinforce social stereotypes?
The Object Workshop
"Your Turn to Hypothesize."
We will analyze descriptive adjectives for objects across different linguistic gender maps.
Object Description Workshop Gendered Objects Workshop
Morphology & Descriptive Bias
Name:
Phase 1: The Comparative Map
Below is a table of 5 common objects and their grammatical genders in German and Spanish. Note that these assignments are arbitrary and often contradictory.
Object German Gender Spanish Gender Bridge Feminine (die Brücke) Masculine (el puente) Key Masculine (der Schlüssel) Feminine (la llave) Sun Feminine (die Sonne) Masculine (el sol) Moon Masculine (der Mond) Feminine (la luna) Clock Feminine (die Uhr) Masculine (el reloj)
Phase 2: Descriptive Prediction
Choose two objects from above. Write down 3 adjectives you think a speaker of each language might use to describe them, based on the Whorfian hypothesis that linguistic gender leaks into conceptual associations.
Object 1: ________________
German Description Predictions:
Spanish Description Predictions:
Object 2: ________________
German Description Predictions:
Spanish Description Predictions:
Analysis & Synthesis
3. Qualitative Coding: Review the adjectives used in the Boroditsky studies (e.g., German speakers called bridges "beautiful, elegant, fragile" while Spanish speakers called them "big, dangerous, strong"). What social stereotypes are being mapped onto these inanimate objects?
4. The English Control: English lacks grammatical gender for nouns (we don't have "die Bridge"). However, we still use gendered pronouns for things like ships (she) or tools (he/it). How might this "residue" of gender affect English speakers' cognition compared to German or Spanish speakers?
The Universalist Rebuttal
"A critic argues that the results don't show that language causes the associations, but that the culture has these associations and they just happened to be reflected in the language."
How could you design a study to prove that the language itself is the cause, not just a cultural byproduct?
Cognitive Cartography Sequence Lesson 4: Gender Workshop PSY-LING 302
Synthesis Seminar Slides Language as a Lens
The Neo-Whorfian Synthesis
The Ultimate Debate
"Language is a lens, not a prison."
After 4 weeks of evidence, where do you stand? Does language merely highlight reality, or does it reconstruct it?
Mapping the Course
Color
Categorical perception in Russian speakers (Winawer).
Space
Absolute vs. Relative frames (Guugu Yimithirr).
Gender
Descriptive bias in object representation (Boroditsky).
Time
Horizontal vs. Vertical conceptualizations of time.
Neo-Whorfianism
The Consensus Findings:
Language affects **automatic** processing speed.
Effects are strongest in **ambiguous** or **memory-taxing** tasks.
Linguistic labels act as **online cognitive tools**.
The "Strong Version" (Determinism) is widely rejected. But the "Weak Version" (Relativity) has been empirically revitalized.
"Language does not determine what we *can* think, but what we *must* think about."
Seminar Protocols
1. Evidence First
Every claim must be backed by a specific study (Winawer, Boroditsky, Levinson, etc.).
2. Steelmanning
Before refuting an argument, summarize it back to the speaker's satisfaction.
3. Nuance
Avoid binary "yes/no" stances. Aim for the "to what extent" middle ground.
Position Paper
The Synthesis Prompt
"Develop a position on the current standing of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Where does language significantly shape cognition, and where do universal constraints prevail?"
Synthesis Chart
Grading Rubric
Argument Synthesis Organizer Seminar Synthesis Organizer
Integrating Evidence & Argument
Name:
The Evidence Matrix
Before the seminar, synthesize the findings from each domain we explored. What is the "smoking gun" for each?
Domain Key Empirical Evidence Primary Leaning Color Perception Relative / Universal? Spatial Orientation Relative / Universal? Grammatical Gender Relative / Universal?
Seminar Preparation
My Opening Statement (The 30-Second Hook):
Three Discussion Questions for the Seminar:
The Opposition
"To build a strong synthesis, you must understand the Universalist (Pinker-style) counter-claims."
Anticipated Counter-Argument
What is the strongest point the 'other side' will make?
My Rebuttal
How can you use course data to answer them?
Position Paper Outline
Thesis Statement:
Main Body Point 1 (Language as Attention):
Main Body Point 2 (Biological Constraints):
Cognitive Cartography Sequence Lesson 5: Synthesis Seminar PSY-LING 302
Position Paper Rubric Assessment Standard
Position Paper Rubric
Neo-Whorfian Synthesis
Final Assessment
Assessment Overview
Students must produce a 1,500-word position paper arguing for a specific interpretation of linguistic relativity based on course evidence. The paper should synthesize at least three empirical domains (Color, Space, Gender, Time) and address the Universalist counter-arguments.
Required Sources: 4+ Empirical Studies Format: APA Style
Criteria Exemplary (4) Proficient (3) Emerging (1-2) Evidence Integration Flawlessly integrates 3+ course domains with specific data points (e.g., RT in ms, rotation strategy results). Accurately cites at least 2 domains; uses evidence to support general claims correctly. Relies on anecdotal evidence; major studies are misapplied or missing key results. Theoretical Nuance Clear distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' versions. Analyzes the 'obligatory attention' model. Correctly defines relativity vs determinism but may over-generalize some findings. Confuses determinism and relativity; treats language as a "prison" rather than a "lens." Synthesis & Rebuttal Directly addresses Universalist (Mentalese) critiques with evidence-based rebuttals. Acknowledges counter-arguments but the rebuttal lacks specific empirical backing. One-sided argument; fails to engage with alternative theoretical frameworks. Academic Rigor Perfect APA formatting. Precise use of cognitive-psychological terminology. Consistent APA style; generally accurate use of technical terms. Informal tone; frequent errors in formatting or conceptual terminology.
Instructor Feedback
Strengths
Areas for Growth
PSY-LING 302 Final Rubric Total Points: 16 Passing: 12+
